Eyewitness Testimony PDF

Preview

Summary

Grade 83/100 - Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?...

Description

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

1

Essay Question: Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

Eyewitness testimony is an account given under oath detailing a version of events that the person is said to have witnessed. The number of children providing eyewitness testimony has increased substantially since the 1980’s which is due in-part to the increased awareness of child sexual abuse and corresponding revision of criminal procedures (Bruck & Ceci, 1999). With such relaxation of standards comes debate within the criminology sector regarding the reliability of child eyewitness testimony. Two common methods used to examine the effectiveness of eyewitness testimony in children are laboratory-based experiments and field-based work. The first approach, being laboratory-based experiments, is conducted in a controlled environment where factors contributing to the child’s recollection of an event are manipulated. Many of these studies are empirical research. The second approach, being field-based work, examines forensic interviews and how the interviewers questioning technique can impact the child’s responses (Brown & Lamb, 2015). Findings from laboratory-based studies show that children are accurate in recalling events, particularly during freerecall. A study examining children’s recall of events found that across all age groups, 100% of the key events were recalled correctly (Davies, Tarrant & Flin, 1989). Similarly, findings from field-based work show children’s accuracy in the recall of events, with one such case study showing supportive evidence linked to 80% of the allegations made (Birdrose & Goodman, 2000). A common topic of debate across all resources, is that of children’s susceptibility to suggestion. However, upon analysis of the full scope of available material, it can be found that children can provide reliable eyewitness testimony provided the interview is conducted correctly.

Firstly, this essay will define a child eyewitness and how their testimonies are used within the criminal justice system. Secondly, it will explore the vulnerability of children to suggestibility and how that impacts their testimony. Thirdly, it will assess the studies around age and how it impacts on memory and finally, it will define the NICHD investigative interview protocol and prove its effectiveness in producing reliable testimony.

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

2

To begin it is important that a definition of child eyewitness testimony is established. In Australia, a minor is defined as a person under the age of 18 and eyewitness testimony is defined as a statement given under oath by a person describing an event that they have witnessed. Combining these two definitions gives a basic concept of what is classed as child eyewitness testimony. However, within the Australian judicial system there are strict laws regarding the age of eyewitnesses and their competency to give sworn evidence. Judges are required to determine any child under the age of fourteen’s understanding of the oath. If the child is proven by the judge to have a sound understanding of the nature of the oath, their evidence is sworn in, in the same manner as adult evidence. On the other hand, if the judge finds the child does not understand the oath, the judge is then required to assess the child’s intelligence. In the instance that the judge decides the child is not intellectually capable of providing testimony, such evidence is excluded. However, if the judge decides that the child is intellectually capable of providing testimony, the evidence must be corroborated and admitted (The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated, 2015). According to Nayak and Khajuria (2019) “Eyewitness testimony is a form of direct evidence which may be regarded as valuable for forensic purposes. In the absence of any other crucial evidence, the testimony of an eyewitness is considered putative by the law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the criminal justice system faithfully relies on an eyewitness testimony to ascertain facts relating to a crime or an event of miss happening.” Traditionally, children were perceived as unreliable witnesses within Australian common law, with a view that that children are suggestible, susceptible to fantasy and likely to give inaccurate evidence. However, recent research suggests children’s cognitive and recall abilities have been underestimated and interviewing children in a skilful manner can promote effective consolidation and retention of memories (The Australian Law Reform Commission, 1997).

The first and most prominent argument within the criminology sector is that of a child’s suggestibility. Prior to the 1980’s and the increased awareness of child sexual abuse, most studies were conducted by asking children misleading questions. Findings of these studies showed that suggestibility was more prominent in children of a younger age. This posed problematic, mainly due to the age of the children used in the samples

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

3

and the nature of the events that the children were questioned about (Bruck & Ceci, 1999). Following this, studies were designed to explore children’s responses regarding their suggestibility when questioned about salient events, notably focusing on questions relative to events of a sexual abuse nature. The findings from these more recent studies show that contrary to previous evidence and disregarding questions relative to noncentral events, children are mostly accurate when asked about key features of salient events. In fact, in the study conducted by Rudy & Goodman (1991), only one false account was documented in the abuse-related questioning (Bruck & Ceci, 1999). Furthermore, interviewer bias can have an astounding effect on children’s recollection of events. Numerous studies have shown that children generate false accounts of events when asked suggestible questions. A study conducted by Goodman and Aman (1990) found that 32% of three-year-olds and 24% of five-year-olds responded falsely to closeended questions such as “Did he touch your private parts?” (Ceci & Bruck, 1993). In the study conducted by Garven, Wood and Malpass (2000) it was reported that when prompted by reinforcement of the interviewer, 35% of children answered favourably to misleading questions, compared to 12% who did not experience reinforcement. This suggests that false accounts can be generated not only by misleading questions but also by reinforcement (Weiner & Otto, 2013). In contrary, it has been found that when forensic investigators use recommended interviewing techniques, including open-ended questions, the quality of information provided by alleged victims, including young children, is significantly enhanced (Sternberg, Lamb, Orbach, Esplin & Mitchell, 2001). When examining memory accuracy performance, findings show that free-report accuracy in children across all age groups, in both recall and recognition, was 81%, compared to forced-report accuracy of 68% (Koriat, Goldsmith, Schneider & NakashDura, 2001). Similarly, in a study conducted by Yi and Lamb (2018), 63.2% disclosed secretive details of an event when asked open-ended questions in comparison to 47.4% who were asked directive questions (Yi & Lamb, 2018). Overall it can be concluded that children can provide reliable eyewitness testimony when correct interviewing protocols are adopted and when they are afforded the option of free narrative.

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

4

Secondly, it is important to explore empirical studies of age and how it can affect memory. Numerous studies have analysed outbound memory accuracy in younger children versus older children. Findings consistently show developmental increases in accuracy the of older children (Koriat et al, 2001). In experiment one, conducted by Koriat et al (2001), groups of younger children (second and third graders) were compared to groups of older children (fifth and sixth graders) whereby they were shown a slideshow describing an event in the life of a family. They were then asked thirty questions about the story. Unsurprisingly, overall accuracy differed between the groups with the results showing 77% for the younger children versus 84% for the older children. This difference in accuracy has been found to be linked to differentiators in younger children’s ability to monitor the correctness of their answers and their subsequent withholding of information (Koriat et al, 2001). Moreover, an experiment conducted by Davies et al, (1989) where children were exposed to a health survey visitor and later asked questions relating to their encounter found that differences in performance between the age groups were linked to memory retrieval skills. While generally, the older children outperformed the younger children, it is of note that this only occurred in some tasks. It was found that there is little justification for discrimination between the testimonies of younger and older children, with the superiority in older children being a quantitative not qualitive difference (Davies et al, 1989). Finally, in comparing adult and child eyewitness testimony, it is important to consider the effect that age and past experiences have on memory. Otgaar, Howe, Merckelbach and Muris (2018), state that “When experiencing an event (e.g., robbery), nodes related to that event but which are not part of the current experience may become activated (e.g., seeing a gun) and increase the likelihood of a false memory. Throughout the course of life, people acquire more knowledge, resulting in faster and more automatic associative activation. The net effect of this is that under some conditions (e.g., when surrounded by associatively related cues), adults are more susceptible to false memory than children precisely because they are more likely to generate faulty associations”. Overall, it can be concluded that quantitative recall accuracy is lower in younger children however, adults are more susceptible to the generation of false memories which highlights the importance of skilful interviews and discounts the blanket suggestion that a child’s recollection of events is inferior to that of an adult.

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

5

To effectively rebut claims that child eyewitness testimony is unreliable, it is imperative to examine interview protocols and how following a proven interview technique significantly increases the accuracy of testimony. According to The National Institute of Justice (2012), “The National Institute of Child Health and Development Investigative Interview Protocol is a structured protocol for professionals conducting forensic interviews with suspected child sex abuse victims. The protocol was developed to translate professional recommendations for interview strategies into operational guidelines practitioners can use while talking to children about alleged sexual abuse incidents”. Results from studies conducted in four separate countries (Cyr, Lamb, Pelletier, Leduc & Perron, 2006; Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Esplin & Horowitz, 2006; Orbach, Hershkowitz, Lamb, Sternberg, Esplin & Horowitz, 2000; Sternberg, Lamb, Orbach, Esplin, & Mitchell, 2001) found that when investigators adopt NICHD structured protocol, the quality of information obtained from an alleged victims is enhanced (Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Esplin & Horowitz, 2007). Likewise, a variety of professional groups and experts have recognized the potential of child eyewitness testimony and have made recommendations relative to the interview techniques utilized (e.g., American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC), 1990, 1997; Jones, 2003; Lamb 1994; Lamb, Sternberg, & Esplin, 1998; Home Office, 1992, 2002; Orbach, Hershkowitz, Lamb, Sternberg, Esplin, & Horowitz, 2000; Poole & Lamb, 1998; Sattler, 1998; Warren & McGough, 1996). In summary, it is well documented that useful testimony can be obtained from children if careful investigative procedures are followed (Lamb et al, 2007). The National Institute of Justice states that “The NICHD protocol trains interviewers to use open-ended prompts and guides them through the phases of the investigative interview to increase the amount of information elicited from children’s free recall memory. The protocol has three phases: introductory, rapport building, and substantive or free recall.” By adopting this interview technique, it is proven that a child’s suggestibility is decreased thus discounting claims that children provide unreliable eyewitness testimony based solely on susceptibility.

In conclusion children can provide reliable eyewitness testimony. Numerous studies pertaining to the suggestibility of children show favourable results when children are offered the option of free narrative. The accuracy of memory recall in

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

6

comparison to age only denotes quantitative discrepancies rather than qualitive and when other factors are incorporated, such as the increase of false memory representation in adults, it can be argued that this evidence discounts the overall view that children are less accurate in their recall of memory. Finally, with the introduction of the NICHD interview protocol and corresponding support of various experts and professional groups, it is found that using the correct techniques promotes accurate child eyewitness testimony. Overall, it has been confirmed that children are reliable witnesses and their testimony is critical to the criminal justice system.

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

7

References

Birdrose, S., & Goodman, G. S. (2000). Testimony and evidence: A scientific case study of memory for child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 145162. doi:10.1002/acp.1782 Brown, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. (2015). Can children be useful witnesses? It depends how they are questioned. Child Development Perspectives, 9(4), 250-255. doi:10.111/cdep.12142 Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of children’s memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 419-439. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.419 Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin 113(3), 403-439. doi:10.1037//00332909.113.3.403 Cyr, M., Lamb, M. E., Pelletier, J., Leduc, P., & Perron, A. (2006). Assessing the effectiveness of the NICHD Investigative Interview protocol in Francophone Quebec. In Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference, Portsmouth, UK. Davies, D., Tarrant, A., & Flin, R. (1989). Close encounters of the witness kind: Children’s memory for a simulated health inspection. British Journal of Psychology, 80(4), 415. Retrieved from https://doiorg.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02333.x

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

8

Garven, S., Wood, J. M., & Malpass, R. S. (2000). Allegations of wrongdoing: The effects of reinforcement on children’s mundane and fantastic claims. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 38-49. doi:10.1007/BF01044540 Goodman, G. S., & Aman, C. (1990). Children’s use of anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event. Child Development 61(6), 1859-1871. doi:10.2307/1130842 Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., Schneider, W., & Nakash-Dura, M. (2001). The credibility of children’s testimony: Can children control the accuracy of their memory reports? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(4), 405-437. doi:10.1006/jcep.2000.2612 Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improved the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD investigative interview protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11), 1201-1231. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021 National Institute of Justice. (2012). Program profile: NICHD investigative interview profile. Retrieved from https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx? ID=213 Nayak, B. P., & Khajuria, H. (2019). Eyewitness testimony: probative value in criminal justice system. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences 9(1), 1-2. doi:10.1186/s41935-018-0109-z Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2000) Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

9

alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(6), 733-752. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00137-X Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Merckelbach, H., & Muris, P. (2018). Who is the better eyewitness? sometimes adults but at other times children. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(5), 378-385. doi:10.1177/0963721418770998 Rudy, L., & Goodman, G. S. (1991). Effects of participation on children’s reports: Implications for children’s testimony. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 527538. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.4.527 Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. (2001). Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children’s responses to freerecall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 997-1005. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.997 The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated. (2015). Bench book for children giving evidence in Australian courts. Retrieved from https://aija.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Child-Witness-BB-Update2015.pdf The Australian Law Reform Commission. (1997). Seen and heard: priority for children in the legal process (ALRC Report 84). Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/seen-and-heard-priority-children-legalprocess-alrc-report-84/overview Weiner, I. B., & Otto, R. K. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of forensic psychology, 561612. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au

Can children provide reliable eyewitness testimony?

10

Yi, M., & Lamb, M. E. (2018). The effects of narrative practice on children’s testimony and disclosure of secrets. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 326-336. doi:10.1002/acp.3385...