Children are often required to testify viva voce in criminal trials. The question arises whether children understand what is communicated to them during their testimony in court. In the courtroom, the witness serves as a source of information. In child abuse cases in particular, the meaningful participation of the child in court proceedings is crucial due to the fact that the child is often the key witness, or the only witness, for the prosecution. The proper evaluation of the child’s evidence, however, requires that all role-players involved in the judicial process have a sound knowledge of those aspects which deal with child psychology, especially the cognitive and language abilities of children who testify. The procedure that is followed in court is not understood by the ordinary lay person, even less by children, and the language used is formalistic and very specialized. Legal language in general often contains cognitively and linguistically inappropriate questions which prevent children from relating their stories. Furthermore their responses do not sufficiently reflect their knowledge and experience of the incident of alleged sexual assault. Court language creates serious problems for children and accordingly prevents them from being effective witnesses and taking part in the judicial process in a meaningful way. The researcher, in her capacity as a Regional Court Magistrate, realized that children have limited understanding of the criminal trial process and often become secondary victims as a result of a system that does not acknowledge their cognitive and linguistic developmental levels. The purpose of this research was therefore to test the validity of the following hypotheses: • During the examination of children in a criminal trial developmentally and linguistically inappropriate questions are posed to them; and This results in ineffective communication. Eight court transcripts of criminal cases heard in the regional courts of the Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga by different presiding officers were chosen at random. These transcripts were analyzed and evaluated in order to determine whether questions posed to children when they testify are cognitively and linguistically appropriate. Each question in each of the eight transcripts was numbered and analyzed. The findings of the analysis were categorized in terms of whether they were cognitively and linguistically inappropriate questions. It was clear that the majority of questions put to the child witnesses were cognitively and linguistically inappropriate. It is evident from the evaluation that the manner in which the children’s evidence in court was presented and the way in which they were questioned created a communication barrier which placed a distorted version of events before the court. It is therefore recommended that full account be taken of the cognitive and language capabilities of each particular child in order to elicit reliable information during the child’s testimony. It is of the utmost importance that questioning be conducted in such a fashion so as to ensure that the child witness understands not only the content of the questions, but also what answers or responses are expected from them. At present, acknowledgement of linguistic and cognitive developmental appropriateness, concern and comprehension for the psychology of the child witness are ignored at best, and totally exploited at worst. This lack of knowledge about child development impacts adversely upon the child’s credibility in court. To elevate and enhance the credibility of children, it is of the utmost importance for society in general and court role-players in particular to appreciate the various stages and faces of child development. The main recommendation is that court role-players should make a paradigm shift and children, including victims of sexual assault, should be given the opportunity to tell their own stories in their own language supported by other methods of communication. In evaluating any possible changes, it is necessary to adopt and develop a holistic and multi-disciplinary approach based on scientific principles. A specialized system is required to deal with children in the criminal justice system and innovative methods to achieve this are necessary. There is a strong need to change or adjust the present manner in which the criminal justice system accommodates child witnesses. Such a change or adjustment will be in the best interests of children as envisaged in section 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis describes research about potential jurors' beliefs about children as witnesses. Jurors' knowledge of memory, suggestibility and child sexual abuse was collected and analysed. The aim was to identify strengths or weaknesses in jurors' knowledge to further inform discussion on whether experts should provide evidence to jurors about children's memory, suggestibility and behaviour, in cases which involve child witnesses. This research showed that jurors from both Australia and America had correct beliefs about some characteristics of child witnesses, however they also had incorrect beliefs. The main areas where both Australian and American jurors' beliefs were incorrect was in the suggestibility and interrogation category, and the memory and ability to testify category; however both had some incorrect beliefs with respect to reactions to sexual abuse and disclosure about sexual abuse categories. These findings support the proposition that expert evidence would be beneficial in improving jurors' knowledge of child witnesses, particularly in the areas of children's suggestibility and responses to interrogation. Jurors' assessment of children's testimony is fundamental in some criminal cases, and therefore information obtained in this study has implications for any case where a child witness testifies.

For the purpose of this study tbe child witness in the accusatorial system will be viewed as a source of information. When a witness gives evidence in court, the function of the witness is to provide the court with certain information. A number of crucial questions arise when the witness is a child. Do children bave the ability to remember and relate an event accurately? Are children prone to suggestion and fantasy? What effect, if any, does the court environment have on a child 's ability to convey information? What perceptions do children have about the legal process, and how do these perceptions affect their ability to testify? Do adults influence the information which children impart by the techniques they employ to obtain such information? Accepting the hypothesis that child witnesses are sources of information, the purpose of this study is to evaluate all aspects of the criminal justice system relating to child witnesses as well as available research on children to determine whether it is possible to obtain reliable and accurate information from children. Proposals will be formulated regarding the most successful methods of obtaining reliable and accurate information from children, and how these can be adapted for use by the legal system. The purpose of the study is to develop an approach to children in the legal system that will be fair to children while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused, and which will lead to a successful method of obtaining accurate information.

A growing body of research suggests that cross-examination may be detrimental to the accuracy of children�s event reports. The primary goal of the present research was to investigate three specific ways in which the negative effect of cross-examination could be reduced. Experiment 1 examined the effect of reducing the delay between the collection of the primary evidence and cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (N = 76) took part in a staged event and were interviewed 1 to 2 days later. In this interview, children were asked to recall everything they could remember about the event. Children were then asked specific yes/no questions. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 8 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time in a cross-examination format. The 8-month delay was equivalent to the average delay experienced by children in New Zealand courts (Lash, 1995). The aim of the cross-examination interview was to talk the children out of their original responses, irrespective of the accuracy of their original account. Cross-examination questioning had a significant negative effect on the accuracy of children�s reports, regardless of timing. That is, children cross-examined soon after the memory event performed no better than those who were cross-examined after an 8-month delay. Furthermore, one week after cross-examination, children were interviewed again. The purpose of this interview was to establish whether children actually believed the responses they had given during cross-examination. During this interview, many children reversed what they had said during cross-examination, indicating that the responses they had given during cross-examination were due primarily to compliance to authority. Given the finding that compliance to authority played a significant role in children�s cross-examination performance in Experiment 1, Experiment 2 addressed whether a pre-interview intervention aimed to decrease compliance would reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (n = 59) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 62) participated in the same staged event and were interviewed for their primary evidence as in Experiment 1. Prior to the cross-examination interview, however, some children were warned that the interviewer might ask some questions which were tricky and that it was okay to tell her that she was wrong. Warning children prior to the cross-examination interview did not reduce the negative impact of cross-examination for either age group, even when the warning was delivered by the cross-examining interviewer. Experiment 3 addressed whether a more intensive pre-interview intervention could reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Using the same experimental procedures as Experiment 2, half of the 5- and 6-year-old children (n = 77) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 87) received a practice and feedback session with cross-examination type questions prior to the target interview. While cross-examination still resulted in a decrease in children�s accuracy, children in the preparation condition performed significantly better than the control children. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the negative effect of cross-examination is highly robust and that compliance appears to be the underlying mechanism responsible for this. A practice and feedback session targeting the factors that contribute to compliance reduced, but did not eliminate, the negative effect of this questioning style. Therefore, children�s accuracy may be facilitated to some extent by cross-examination preparation prior to testifying.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Psychology, August 2003. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

A growing body of research suggests that cross-examination may be detrimental to the accuracy of children�s event reports. The primary goal of the present research was to investigate three specific ways in which the negative effect of cross-examination could be reduced. Experiment 1 examined the effect of reducing the delay between the collection of the primary evidence and cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (N = 76) took part in a staged event and were interviewed 1 to 2 days later. In this interview, children were asked to recall everything they could remember about the event. Children were then asked specific yes/no questions. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 8 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time in a cross-examination format. The 8-month delay was equivalent to the average delay experienced by children in New Zealand courts (Lash, 1995). The aim of the cross-examination interview was to talk the children out of their original responses, irrespective of the accuracy of their original account. Cross-examination questioning had a significant negative effect on the accuracy of children�s reports, regardless of timing. That is, children cross-examined soon after the memory event performed no better than those who were cross-examined after an 8-month delay. Furthermore, one week after cross-examination, children were interviewed again. The purpose of this interview was to establish whether children actually believed the responses they had given during cross-examination. During this interview, many children reversed what they had said during cross-examination, indicating that the responses they had given during cross-examination were due primarily to compliance to authority. Given the finding that compliance to authority played a significant role in children�s cross-examination performance in Experiment 1, Experiment 2 addressed whether a pre-interview intervention aimed to decrease compliance would reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (n = 59) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 62) participated in the same staged event and were interviewed for their primary evidence as in Experiment 1. Prior to the cross-examination interview, however, some children were warned that the interviewer might ask some questions which were tricky and that it was okay to tell her that she was wrong. Warning children prior to the cross-examination interview did not reduce the negative impact of cross-examination for either age group, even when the warning was delivered by the cross-examining interviewer. Experiment 3 addressed whether a more intensive pre-interview intervention could reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Using the same experimental procedures as Experiment 2, half of the 5- and 6-year-old children (n = 77) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 87) received a practice and feedback session with cross-examination type questions prior to the target interview. While cross-examination still resulted in a decrease in children�s accuracy, children in the preparation condition performed significantly better than the control children. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the negative effect of cross-examination is highly robust and that compliance appears to be the underlying mechanism responsible for this. A practice and feedback session targeting the factors that contribute to compliance reduced, but did not eliminate, the negative effect of this questioning style. Therefore, children�s accuracy may be facilitated to some extent by cross-examination preparation prior to testifying.

Thesis (MSocSc)--University of South Australia, 1997

Thesis (M.A.)--York University, 2006. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 59-65). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:MR19685