{"id":34,"date":"2019-09-04T19:54:49","date_gmt":"2019-09-04T23:54:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/psyc268\/chapter\/chapter-6\/"},"modified":"2019-09-04T20:03:15","modified_gmt":"2019-09-05T00:03:15","slug":"chapter-6","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/psyc268\/chapter\/chapter-6\/","title":{"raw":"CHAPTER 6: CHILDREN AND THE LAW","rendered":"CHAPTER 6: CHILDREN AND THE LAW"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n
\r\n

Chapter Objectives<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Summarize the recent history of children as witnesses.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Outline the strengths and weaknesses of children as witnesses.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Outline the recommendations for interviewing child witnesses.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Explain how courts determine the competence of children as witnesses in criminal court.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Explain why credibility of children is important and how it is evaluated.<\/li>\r\n \t
  6. Explain how Canadian criminal courts accommodate child witnesses.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\nVery<\/em> young<\/em> children<\/em> are<\/em> witnesses<\/em> in<\/em> criminal<\/em> court,<\/em> usually<\/em> as<\/em> complainants.<\/em> How<\/em> professionals<\/em> and<\/em> nonprofessionals<\/em> talk<\/em> to<\/em> children<\/em> about<\/em> allegations<\/em> can<\/em> have<\/em> a<\/em> profound<\/em> effect<\/em> on<\/em> the<\/em> quality<\/em> of<\/em> children\u2019s<\/em> reports.<\/em> The goals<\/em> must<\/em> be<\/em> to<\/em> maximize<\/em> the<\/em> amount<\/em> of<\/em> correct<\/em> information<\/em> reported<\/em> about<\/em> the<\/em> allegations<\/em> and<\/em> to<\/em> minimize the<\/em> amount<\/em> of<\/em> incorrect<\/em> information<\/em> reported.<\/em> Researchers<\/em> have<\/em> identified<\/em> several<\/em> ways<\/em> not to<\/em> talk<\/em> to<\/em> children and<\/em> these<\/em> are<\/em> briefly<\/em> introduced<\/em> in<\/em> the<\/em> section<\/em> on<\/em> children\u2019s<\/em> suggestibility.<\/em> Researchers<\/em> have<\/em> also<\/em> studied<\/em> various techniques<\/em> that<\/em> advance<\/em> the<\/em> goals<\/em> of<\/em> the<\/em> forensic<\/em> system<\/em> including<\/em> conducting<\/em> all<\/em> interviews<\/em> according<\/em> to<\/em> the characteristics<\/em> of<\/em> a<\/em> good<\/em> interview,<\/em> having<\/em> children<\/em> promise<\/em> to<\/em> tell<\/em> the<\/em> truth,<\/em> and<\/em> allowing<\/em> children<\/em> to<\/em> testify <\/em>with testimonial<\/em> aids.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    We begin this chapter with case studies that represent the best and the worst of children\u2019s testimony in criminal court. Case Study 6.1 summarizes two cases, both of which illustrate how remarkably accurate children\u2019s reports can be. Case Study 6.2 illustrates how remarkably inaccurate children can be when interviewed in ways that are biased. The message students should take from this second case study is not how suggestible and unreliable children are, but how untrained interviewers who use shockingly biased techniques can induce children to report events that are complex, detailed, emotionally charged . . . and false!<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n
    \r\n

    CASE STUDY 6.1. Children can be remarkable witnesses<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    Orbach and Lamb (1999) described the case of a 13-year old victim who was in the bathroom listening to music when her grandfather arrived. His plan was to sexually abuse her, another incident in a long series of sexual assaults that had been occurring for two years. Before the abuse began, the victim pushed the \u201crecord\u201d button on the tape deck, providing an audio record of the entire incident. After the assault, the victim gave the audiotape to her mother, and the police were contacted. The perpetrator was interviewed by the police two days after the incident. This is a rare case where there was independent evidence of details of the abuse that could be used to assess the accuracy of the child\u2019s report. The victim\u2019s report contained 189 details; 51 percent were corroborated on the tape, and almost all of the corroborated details were central (98 percent). Most of the details that were not corroborated described actions that could not be con\ufb01rmed based on an audiotape. Only one detail reported by the victim was contradicted by other evidence. The victim\u2019s report was remarkably complete and accurate.<\/div>\r\n
    Another example of how extraordinarily well children can recall and report their victimization was described by Jones and Krugman (1986). Susie, a three-year-old child, was abducted outside her home. She was sexually assaulted, thrown down an outhouse toilet, and left for dead. Seventy hours after her abduction she was discovered and hospitalized. Five days after her abduction she was interviewed by the police. She described a sexual assault and identi\ufb01ed the perpetrator from two different lineups. Fourteen days after her abduction, she was presented with a lineup that did not contain the suspect; she was told that the \u201cbad man\u201d was in the lineup. Susie rejected all members of the lineup, reporting that the \u201cbad man\u201d was not there. Immediately after Susie rejected the lineup, the perpetrator\u2019s photo was added and she was asked again to identify the \u201cbad man.\u201d Once again, she identi\ufb01ed the perpetrator. Eventually, the perpetrator made a full confession and described his sexual assault of Susie just as she had described it to the police.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n
    \r\n

    CASE STUDY 6.2. How NOT to interview children<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n\r\nThe saga began in 1991 in Saskatchewan when a three-year-old said, in response to her mother\u2019s query about her \u201cred bum,\u201d that \u201cRavis\u201d had \u201cpoked\u201d her with a \u201cpink rope.\u201d \u201cRavis\u201d was the child\u2019s name for Travis, the son of her daycare provider. The comment launched a massive investigation of the daycare that led to multiple charges against nine people: the daycare providers, Linda and Ron Sterling; their son, Travis; a minor living in the Sterling home at the time; and \ufb01ve members of the local police force, John Popwich, Jim Elstad, Edward Revesz, Darryl Ford, and Darren Sabourin.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    After extensive and repeated highly suggestive questioning, the children from the daycare reported heinous and ritualistic abuse. The children said they were made to urinate in the mouths of the defendants; stripped naked, placed in cages, then suspended from the ceiling; injected with a clear liquid; placed in a freezer; made to have sex with each other; subjected to anal intercourse; and forced to watch animal torture and human sacri\ufb01ce. Notwithstanding the horri\ufb01c nature of the allegations, there was absolutely no physical evidence to support them\u2014in fact, there was no other indication that anything out of the ordinary was happening at the daycare operated by the Sterlings. The case rested solely on the reports made by the children.<\/div>\r\n
    So what went wrong with the investigation? Just about everything. To begin, when the \ufb01rst allegation was made, the police interviewed other daycare children and their families about possible child sexual abuse. The investigation quickly expanded to include any child with whom the Sterlings could have had contact. A theme quickly developed in the questions asked by police, a presumption that the Sterlings were bad people who did very bad things to children. This stereotype was maintained and fuelled through community meetings, interviews with parents and children, and therapy sessions with the children. Soon the community was on \ufb01re with allegations of satanic ritualistic abuse of children.<\/div>\r\n
    Details of the allegations were disclosed to children, parents, and the community in several different ways. For example, when investigators determined that some abuse had occurred in a \u201cDevil Church\u201d that was not part of the Sterling home (it is not clear how this idea developed), members of the community became involved in locating it. A local resident who was not otherwise associated with the investigation identi\ufb01ed a building just outside town as a candidate to be the Devil Church. The chief of police drove two of the children and their parents to the location and asked them to con\ufb01rm it was the Devil Church. The children complied. Pictures were taken of the inside and outside of the building and shown to other children, and the church was described as the place where terrible things happened to children.<\/div>\r\n
    The police held public meetings to update the community on the state of the investigation. Parents of children who might have been abused were routinely told of new details revealed by the children. In most cases, the parents discussed the details of the allegations with their children. Children were also shown pictures of props and of other people who might have been involved in the alleged abuse.<\/div>\r\n
    The police interviewed the children repeatedly; some were interviewed more than a dozen times. The primary objective of the interviews was to con\ufb01rm the events that police of\ufb01cers believed to be true. The questions were strongly leading in several ways: the alleged perpetrators were described as bad people who did bad things to children; children were told that others had disclosed, they were given details of the other disclosures, and they were told that they should disclose too; children were told that disclosure would help other children and would allow the perpetrators to get the help they desperately needed; questions were repeated\u2014in at least one interview 19 times\u2014until a disclosure was produced; after a disclosure, the question was not repeated; to help them remember the abuse, children were encouraged to imagine and pretend; and they were given rewards for disclosing abuse\u2014for example, children were taken to see a police dog, they were told how brave they were for making a disclosure, and\/or they were permitted to leave the interview after a disclosure.<\/div>\r\n
    During the investigation, the children were in therapy. Two of the children were involved in intense play therapy with a therapist who had been briefed by the police about the nature of the allegations. The therapist for two children employed a \u201cdisclosure\u201d technique that involved repeated requests to disclose the abuse. Another child was treated with a \u201cgood guy\/bad guy\u201d play approach in which the Sterlings were always cast as the bad guys.<\/div>\r\n
    The charges against the \ufb01ve police of\ufb01cers were eventually stayed. The case of Ron, Linda, and Travis Sterling went to trial and was heard by a judge and jury. The trial lasted \ufb01ve months. Ron and Linda Sterling were acquitted. Their son, Travis Sterling, was convicted of eight charges against six children and sentenced to an aggregate term of \ufb01ve years in prison. The other minor in the Sterling home also went to trial in 1993 and was convicted of seven sex-related offences.<\/div>\r\n
    The convictions of Travis Sterling and the other minor were appealed. In 1995, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned seven of the eight convictions of Travis Sterling, entering acquittals for them. The only conviction that was upheld concerned the one related to the \ufb01rst child\u2019s report that \u201cRavis\u201d poked her with a pink rope. In quashing the other convictions, the court held that the interviews with the children were so \ufb02awed that the children\u2019s reports, the only evidence at trial, could not be relied on. All seven convictions against the other minor were overturned.<\/div>\r\n
    Most of the accused persons launched malicious prosecution civil suits. In 2002, after ten long years of legal haggling, John Popwich won his malicious prosecution suit; he was given an of\ufb01cial apology from the government and a $1.3-million settlement. In 2004, the province agreed to pay $925,000 to Ron and Linda Sterling and the minor who was charged at the same time. In 2005, Darren Sabourin was awarded $150,000. In 2006, Jim Elstad was awarded $285,000 and Edward Revesz was awarded $175,000. Darryl Ford, apparently, did not \ufb01le a civil suit. This case has cost more than$2.8 million in malicious prosecution damages alone.<\/div>\r\n
    February 12, 2003, CBC News website, www.cbc.ca\/\ufb01fth\/martin\/popowich.html; The Star-Phoenix, \u201cMartensville Scandal,\u201d Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, June 24, 2006, www.canada.com\/saskatoonstarphoenix\/ news\/weekend_extra\/story.html?id=eec1a825-874448a7-943f-b6319f26f578&k=52612; Government of Saskatchewan, \u201cSettlements Reached in Martensville Lawsuits,\u201d news release, March 7, 2006, www.gov.sk.ca\/news?newsId=e6e89e6a-89c9-4c71-a709-56fa38438e37.Sources: \u201cThe Satanic Sex Scandal: John Popowich,\u201d background to \u201cHell to Pay,\u201d an episode of The Fifth Estate,<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n
    \r\n

    Learning Objective 6.1<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n

    Summarize the recent history of children as witnesses.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    recent complaint <\/strong>doctrine <\/strong>a law that was in force in Canada until 1983, which stated that in all cases involving sexual offences, if the victim did not complain at the \ufb01rst available opportunity, the trier of fact was required to assume that the complainant was not credible or had consented to having sex<\/div>\r\n

    (Recent) History of Child Witnesses<\/h2>\r\n\u201cBefore 1982, sexual offences involving children were virtually impossible to prosecute to conviction\u201d according to Van Tongeren and Dauns (2001, p. 148). Although there were no written laws prohibiting children from testifying in criminal court, there were at least three significant obstacles to successful prosecution. Until 1983, the recent complaint doctrine <\/strong>was in effect in Canada (see Criminal Code, 1985, s. 275). According to this law, if a victim of sexual assault, whether a child or an adult, did not complain of the assault at the first available opportunity, the trier of fact was required to assume that the complainant was not credible or had consented to having sex. This doctrine had a profound impact on prosecutions involving child sexual abuse because up to twothirds of children delay reporting their sexual abuse (London, Bruck, Ceci, & Shuman, 2005).\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    <\/div>\r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n

    INSIGHT 6.1. RECENT COMPLAINT DOCTRINE<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n\r\nIn R. v. D.D. (2000), the Supreme Court of Canada provided the following 'archaic passage' describing the complaint doctrine:\r\n
    When therefore a virgin has been so deflowered and overpowered, against the peace of the lord the king, forthwith and while the act is fresh she ought to repair with hue and cry to the neighboring vills and there display to honest men the injury done to her, the blood and her dress stained with blood, and the tearing of her dress; and so she ought to go to the provost of the hundred and to the serjeant of the lord the king and to the coroners and to the viscount and make her appeal at the first county court.<\/blockquote>\r\nBy the year 2000, most common-law countries had disposed of the recent complaint doctrine. Some countries replaced it with a judicial direction that stated that delayed reporting could not be taken as evidence that the complainant was not credible or had consented to having sex. (Lewis, 2006)\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\nSecond, until 1988 there was a requirement that courts be warned of the dangers of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an unsworn child (Criminal Code, s. 659). An unsworn child is one who testifies on a promise to tell the truth rather than on an oath or affirmation. This rule was strict and required an acquittal if there was no independent corroborating evidence, even if the trier of fact was otherwise convinced of the truth of the charge (Bala, 1990). This rule was particularly oppressive for child sexual assault victims because often in these cases there is no corroborative evidence (Bala, 1999; Sas & Cunningham, 1995), and because young children often testify as unsworn witnesses. In fact, in Canada today all children under 14 years of age testify as unsworn witnesses in criminal court.\r\n
    \r\n

    INSIGHT 6.2. Attitudes towards child witnesses<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    John Wigmore is one of the most influential legal scholars of the 20th century. His 1940 treatise, often called 'Wigmore on Evidence', is considered on of the greatest books on law. In fact, it is cited often by the Supreme Court of Canada because it is an accurate and eloquent statement of the law. Wigmore's description of the attitude towards women's and children's allegations of sexual assault is not positive. He wrote:<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n
    Modern psychiatrists have amply studied the behaviour of errant young girls and women coming before the courts in all sorts of cases. Their psychic complexes are multifarious, distorted partly by inherent defects, partly by diseased derangements or abnormal instincts, partly by bad social environment, partly by temporary psychological or emotional conditions. One form taken by these complexes is that of contriving false charges of sexual offences by men (cited in Bala, 1990, p.15)<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n\r\nThe third barrier was one of attitude. There was a pervasive belief that the evidence of children was inherently unreliable, particularly in allegations of sexual assault. By the late 1980s the recent complaint doctrine and the requirement for corroboration of unsworn children\u2019s evidence had been done away with. Beginning in about the mid-1980s there was a dramatic increase in research on the issue of children as witnesses, and the number of children entering criminal courts as witnesses increased dramatically. Ceci and Bruck (1995) explain this as a consequence of several changes: (a) a wider admissibility of expert psychological testimony on issues of eyewitness accuracy (at least in the United States); the sociopolitical zeitgeist of the late 1960s that encouraged social scientists to focus more on the application of their research\u2014the need for applied research was particularly acute when it could help vulnerable members of society, such as children; (c) the \u201csudden\u201d awareness of the prevalence of crimes against children (e.g., the Badgley Report, released in 1984, investigated sexual offences against children in Canada); and (d) the changes in law that made it possible for children to be witnesses in criminal court.<\/span>\r\n

    Children\u2019s Suggestibility<\/h2>\r\n
    \r\n

    Learning Objective 6.2<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n

    Outline the strengths and weaknesses of children as witnesses.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    children\u2019s <\/strong>suggestibility <\/strong>the degree to which social and psychological factors affect the way children remember, retrieve, and report details about the past (Ceci & Bruck, 1993)<\/div>\r\nDuring the mid- to late 1980s there was a dramatic increase in studies on chil<\/strong>dren\u2019s<\/strong> suggestibility<\/strong>, defined by Ceci and Bruck (1993) as \u201cthe degree to which encoding, storage, retrieval, and reporting of events can be influenced by a range of social and psychological factors\u201d (p. 404). In other words, children will sometimes report false details or false events when social and psychological factors affect the way they remember, retrieve, and report details about the past. Part of the impetus for this research was the large number of criminal cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse. These cases raised serious concerns about techniques used to interview children and the possibility that some techniques could lead to false reports.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    <\/div>\r\n
    We often think of suggestibility as a consequence of leading questions, and leading questions can certainly lead to suggestibility effects in children and adults. However, this example does not describe the wide range of circumstances that can lead to suggestibility effects (Ceci & Bruck, 2006). When children are exposed to biases and\/or preconceived notions about what happened, suggestibility effects can be expected among some children. Biases can be expressed to children in a variety of ways. For example, direct accusations that someone did something bad to a child can have profound effects on the child\u2019s report (Thompson, ClarkeStewart, & Lepore, 1997). However, even apparently subtle biases can have significant effects.<\/div>\r\n
    <\/div>\r\n
    In the famous Sam Stone study, Sam Stone visited a daycare with children aged 3 to 4 and 5 to 6 years old (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995). Sam entered the daycare, walked around, commented on the book being read, waved goodbye, and left. Some of the children had been told once a week for four weeks before Sam\u2019s visit that he was a nice person but kind of bumbling and clumsy (stereotype). The same children were also told once a week for four weeks after Sam\u2019s visit that he ripped a book and soiled a teddy bear during his visit (suggestion). Other children, who made up a control group, were not given the stereotype or suggestions. Ten weeks after Sam\u2019s visit the children were given a memory interview that began with free recall\u2014an open-ended request to report everything that happened during Sam Stone\u2019s visit. Children who did not mention a soiled teddy bear or a ripped book in free recall were asked about these misdeeds in the next phase of the interview\u2014probed recall. For instance, children who did not mention the ripped book in free recall were asked, \u201cI heard something about a book. Do you know anything about that?\u201d Children who mentioned either of the misdeeds in free or probed recall were gently challenged: \u201cDid you see him do it?\u201d If a child responded \u201cYes,\u201d the interviewer challenged the child more strongly by asking, \u201cYou didn\u2019t really see it, did you?\u201d Results are illustrated in figures 6.1a and 6.1b (see Canvas).<\/span><\/div>\r\n
    <\/div>\r\n
    \r\n\r\nOf the children in the control group, none reported that Sam committed a misdeed (soiled a teddy bear or ripped a book) in response to the free recall question. Some of the children reported at least one misdeed in response to the probed recall, but only 2.5 percent of the younger children (and none of the older children) maintained the report when the stronger challenge was administered. Contrast this with responses from children who were given the stereotype before Sam\u2019s visit and the suggestions afterward. A substantial minority of these children made at least one erroneous claim in free recall. In response to probed recall, more younger than older children maintained that Sam had soiled a teddy bear and\/or ripped a book, even when strongly challenged. Clearly, the combination of stereotypes and suggestions was powerful and had a much stronger effect on younger children than older children.\r\n\r\nSeveral other factors have been shown to have a negative effect on children\u2019s reports, and we\u2019ll review a subset of factors to introduce the student to this literature. In some studies, interviewers set a tone that encouraged and selectively rewarded disclosure of wrongdoing (Garven, Wood, & Malpass, 2000; Goodman, Batterman-Faunce, Schaaf, & Kenney, 2002). Early in the interview, children in the Goodman et al. study were asked if they \u201cwere afraid to tell\u201d and were reassured, \u201cYou will feel better once you\u2019ve told.\u201d In Garven et al. children were rewarded for making a false disclosure (e.g., \u201cGreat. You\u2019re doing excellent now\u201d) and discouraged from denying the wrongdoing. In both studies, a number of children reported misdeeds that had not occurred.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    <\/div>\r\n
    Another powerful technique that can elicit false reports from children is peer influence (for an excellent review of this new area of research see Principe & Schindewolf, 2012). In one of the first demonstrations of the power of peer influence (Principe & Ceci, 2002), preschoolers went on an \u201carchaeological dig.\u201d During the dig, some children in each class observed a research assistant ruin two archaeological props; other children from the same classes did not observe destruction of the props. To encourage children who observed the misdeeds to talk to their classmates, the destruction of the props was staged to be very dramatic. A third group of children who went on the same archaeological dig did not observe the misdeeds and were not exposed to the peer influence (this was the control condition). On three separate occasions after the archaeological dig, half of the children in each observation group were questioned suggestively about the destruction of the two props. Approximately four weeks after the dig, all children were interviewed in a neutral way about what they had seen. Not surprisingly, suggestive questioning alone led to false reports; among children in the control condition, those who were questioned suggestively were more likely to report having seen the misdeeds than children who were not questioned suggestively. The most dramatic effect was among children who were questioned suggestively and subjected to peer influence. In this group, children who had not witnessed the misdeeds were as likely as children who had witnessed them to report that the misdeeds had occurred during their archaeological dig.<\/div>\r\n
    <\/div>\r\n
    \r\n\r\nThe technique of encouraging a child to imagine or to pretend that something happened (e.g., \u201cTry to make a picture of it in your head\u201d and \u201cWhat do you think you would have been wearing?\u201d) has not been the subject of the same level of carefully controlled research as other suggestive interviewing techniques. However, Wood and Garven (2000) offer three reasons to suspect that inviting a child to play, pretend, or speculate can lead to false allegations: clinical observation, which shows that inviting a person to speculate can lead to false reports; the legal principle that precludes witnesses from speculating; and research on false memories, which finds that inviting a person to imagine or speculate can lead to false memories. In\r\n\r\nCeci, Loftus, Leichtman, and Bruck (1994), some children reported having experienced very complex and emotionally charged events (e.g., going to the hospital for stitches) after they were invited to imagine what the event would have been like and were told that their parents said the event really had happened. Until recently, it has been generally accepted that younger children are more suggestible than older children and adults. This is usually true; however, there is at least one important exception (for an excellent review of this research see Brainerd & Reyna, 2012). One of the first demonstrations that older children can be more suggestible than younger children comes from Brainerd, Reyna, and Forrest (2002). Children and adults heard a list of thematically related words\u2014for example, bed,<\/em> rest,<\/em> awake,<\/em> snooze,<\/em> doze<\/em>, and nap<\/em>\u2014and then were asked to recall the words. The researchers measured the number of list words recalled and the number of intrusions\u2014thematically related words that were NOT on the list, such as sleep<\/em> in this example. There was a very clear developmental improvement in the amount of correct information recalled, and there was also an increase across age in the number of intrusions reported. Adults were more likely than children to recall thematically related words that were not presented. In Connolly and Price (2006), 4-to 5-year-olds and 6-to 7-year-olds played a game four times with some thematically related variation across experiences. After the last play session, children were given thematically related misleading information about some of the details of the last play session. Older children were more suggestible than younger children. It seems that when experienced items are thematically related, and when suggestions are members of the same category, older children and adults are more suggestible than younger children. Brainerd et al. (2002) reasoned that it is harder for younger children to identify the relationship between items, so they are less likely to falsely report items that are thematically related but not experienced.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    <\/div>\r\n

    In most of the research on children\u2019s suggestibility, children are exposed to one or two inappropriate interviewing techniques. In R.<\/em> v.<\/em> Sterling<\/em> (described in Case Study 6.2), children were exposed to multiple and repeated suggestive techniques, so it is not surprising that their reports were bizarre and, according to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, false. Just as a poorly conducted interview can lead to false reports from children, a well-conducted interview can lead to reports that are comprehensive, accurate, and sufficient to convict a perpetrator.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Interviews with Children<\/h2>\r\nWhen it is suspected that a crime has been committed against a child, at least three questions arise: Is the child in need of protection for the purposes of child protection legislation? Should a criminal charge be laid? Is the child in need of therapy? The answers to these questions usually must come from the child\u2019s report of events, often in the context of a forensic interview. A good forensic interview should have as its core objectives (1) to identify the occurrence of child maltreatment and (2) to identify when an allegation or suspicion of maltreatment is false. The task of interviewing a child, particularly a young child, about suspected maltreatment is daunting. A forensic interviewer must remain cognizant of the possibility of false allegations and, at the same time, the reluctance\/inability of some children to provide forensically adequate reports. The seemingly competing goals combined with the special challenges associated with talking to young children may lead (and have led) some interviewers to use techniques that seriously compromise the accuracy and the perceived credibility of the child\u2019s report.\r\n
    \r\n

    Learning Objective 6.3<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n

    Outline the recommendations for interviewing child witnesses.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    commission <\/strong>errors<\/strong> reporting false details<\/div>\r\n

    Characteristics of a Good Interview<\/h3>\r\nAccording to Saywitz and Camparo (2009), \u201cthere is remarkable consensus among clinicians and researchers on a wide range of techniques and general guidelines for interviewing children in a forensic setting from a developmental perspective\u201d (p. 104). These principles apply to all interviews with children, not just formal interviews conducted by professionals. We are able to recommend guidelines to police and other forensic interviewers, but what about all of the informal \u201cdiscussions\u201d with parents, peers, and other interested persons? The effect these informal discussions can have on a child\u2019s report can be profound\u2014 and wholly unknown (Principe & Schindewolf, 2012).\r\n

    Setting of the Interview<\/h4>\r\nPoole and Lamb (2002) suggest that the location of the interview should be child-friendly but not distracting. It takes time for children to warm up to a new environment, and too much stimuli in the environment may extend the time and distract the child.\r\n

    Provide a Supportive Environment<\/h4>\r\nThere is good empirical evidence that non-contingent<\/em> social support has a positive effect on children\u2019s resistance to suggestions and their accuracy, particularly if there is a delay between the event and the interview (Bottoms, Quas, & Davis, 2007; Carter, Bottoms, & Levine, 1996; Davis & Bottoms, 2002). Such support has been defined as warm vocal tones, supportive eye contact, frequent smiling, actions that build rapport, and a relaxed body posture (as demonstrated in Figure 6.2) Carter et al. (1996) reported that, in response to direct questions, 5-to 7-year-olds were more accurate, made fewer commission<\/strong> errors<\/strong> (that is, they reported fewer false details), and were less suggestible in a supportive interviewer condition than they were in a non-supportive interviewer condition. Similarly, Teoh & Lamb (2013) reported a positive relationship between interviewer support and children\u2019s informativeness in a sample of 75 forensic interviews with children who reported having been sexually abused.<\/span>\r\n

    Build Rapport in a Practice Interview<\/h4>\r\nAs part of the rapport-building stage, interviewers should give the child a practice interview, in which the child has an opportunity to describe a non-threatening past event in detail. Interviewers should ask about the past event in the same way they will ask the child about the alleged maltreatment. The practice interview serves a variety of objectives. First, it helps to build rapport. Second, it gives interviewers a chance to observe the child\u2019s linguistic competence. This will help interviewers set their own linguistic style. It also lets interviewers know if there is a language shift when the child talks about the alleged abuse (i.e., does the child revert to \u201cbaby language\u201d or use language that is too maturesounding) and allows them to investigate reasons for the shift. Third, it lets the child know how they will be interviewed during the substantive portion of the interview and how much information the interviewer wants to hear. Finally, it gives the child an opportunity to practise responding to open questions about past events.<\/span>\r\n\r\nAs should be clear from this list of objectives, it is important for the child to spend a considerable amount of time talking during the practice interview. This is encouraged by asking open<\/strong> prompts<\/strong>. If the interviewer asks too many questions, it may have a negative effect on the amount of information provided by younger children during the substantive phase of the interview. To study the effects of using open versus closed<\/strong> prompts<\/strong> in the rapport-building stage, Sternberg et al. (1997) reviewed 51 interviews investigating allegations of child sexual abuse with children between the ages of 4.5 and 12.9. During the rapport-building stage, interviewers used either open prompts or closed questions. The substantive part of the interview was similar for all children. In response to the first substantive question, children who had been given open prompts during the practice interview provided 2.5 times more information than children given closed prompts during practice, and they continued to provide more information in response to open prompts throughout the interview. Teoh and Lamb (2010) studied 75 forensic interviews with children in Malaysia. They found that the number of prompts in the rapport-building phase was negatively correlated with the informativeness of 5-to 7-year-olds, but it showed no relation to the informativeness of 8to 12-year-olds or 13to 15-year-olds (see also Teoh & Lamb, 2013). Roberts, Lamb, and Sternberg (2004) replicated this effect with a lab-based study. Children whose practice interview contained primarily open prompts provided more correct information about an earlier play session than children whose practice interview contained primarily closed prompts. This suggests that the practice interview is important and should not contain too many prompts from the interviewer.\r\n
    \r\n

    open<\/strong> prompts<\/strong> prompts or questions that allow a response that is minimally constrained by the question (e.g., \u201ctell me more about that\u201d)<\/p>\r\n

    closed prompts <\/strong>prompts or questions that constrain the possible responses (e.g., \u201cWho was driving the car?\u201d or \u201cWas it Tuesday or Wednesday?\u201d)<\/p>\r\n

    omission<\/strong> errors<\/strong> failing to report details<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Set the Ground Rules<\/h4>\r\nChildren should be told to say only what really happened but to report everything that actually happened. There is good empirical evidence that a promise to tell the truth has truth-promoting effects with children\u2014we will talk about this later in this chapter when we discuss children\u2019s competence. Although children should only report what they remember happened, they should not edit information. Interviewers must let children know they should report everything, even if the details are partial or seem unimportant.\r\n\r\nInterviewers should empower children to become active participants in the interview. Interviewers should tell them to ask for clarification if they do not understand, to say \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d or \u201cI don\u2019t remember\u201d if that is the appropriate response, and to correct the interviewer if something is not right. It is also recommended that they give children a chance to practise using these responses. For instance, the interviewer could ask the child, \u201cWhen is my birthday?\u201d The correct answer is \u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d and the child should be encouraged to respond that way. This may seem obvious to us as adults, but children often need permission, encouragement, and practice to use these responses when talking to adults\u2014particularly adults in positions of authority.\r\n\r\nThere is mixed data on the efficacy of telling children to say \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d and \u201cI don\u2019t remember\u201d if that is the appropriate response. Poole and Lamb (2002) reviewed several studies and reported that sometimes the instruction increased the number of \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d responses, and sometimes the instructions were not helpful with younger children. It is not the case that such instructions are sometimes helpful and sometimes innocuous; some researchers have found that they can actually increase<\/em> omission<\/strong> errors<\/strong>, or the failure to report details.\r\n\r\nIf too much emphasis is placed on saying \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d or \u201cI don\u2019t understand\u201d without also training the children when a substantive answer is appropriate, children may overuse the responses as a way of demonstrating how well they are following instructions. Saywitz and Moan-Hardie (1994) provided 7-year-olds with extensive training on the \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d response and measured the effect on correct and incorrect responses in a suggestibility study. In one experiment they found that the instruction decreased the number of incorrect responses, but it also decreased the number of correct responses. In a second experiment, children were given similar training but were also given extensive training on how to respond substantively if they were able to do so.\r\n\r\nIn this study, training decreased the number of incorrect responses but did not affect the number of correct responses. Gee, Gregory, and Pipe (1999) reported similar data. Half of the 9-to 10-year-olds and 11-to 13-year-olds in their study were instructed on the importance of saying \u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d and half were given no such instruction. All children were then asked misleading and non-misleading questions about a recent visit to an interactive museum. Children who had been given instructions committed fewer errors but also reported fewer correct details. In another experiment, when 9-to 10-year-old children were also instructed on the importance of providing an answer if possible, children who had been instructed committed fewer errors, and there was no effect on correct details reported.\r\n

    Remain Objective and Neutral<\/h4>\r\nInterviewers should remain objective and neutral with respect to the truth of the allegations they are investigating. Biased interviewers can and often do influence the interview in such a way that they are more likely to obtain responses that are consistent with their hypotheses. In research by White, Leichtman, and Ceci (1997), preschool children were interviewed by a trained social worker or an elementary school teacher about a Simon Says game that they had played about three weeks earlier. The interviewers were exposed to some correct and some incorrect information prior to talking to the children. As expected, the interviewers asked misleading questions that were consistent with what they believed had happened, and some children acquiesced to the suggestions. Similarly, Goodman, Sharma, Thomas, and Considine (1995) found that, in response to free-recall prompts, preschoolers reported more inaccurate information when the interviewer had been biased (i.e., informed of false details before the interview) than when the interviewer had not been biased.\r\n\r\nEffects of interviewer bias are not restricted to interviews with professionals; they have also been observed when misled parents interview their children (Principe, DiPuppo, & Gammel, 2011). In this study, mothers were asked to discuss with their child a magic show their child had recently attended. Some mothers were told that a rabbit that was supposed to be in the magic show \u201cmay\u201d have escaped from its cage (a rabbit had not escaped), while other mothers were not misled. The children of mothers who were misled were far more likely to report that the rabbit had escaped from its cage and that they saw it than children of mothers who were not misled. This is a powerful example of how a rather minor and tentative suggestion to the interviewer can have a dramatic effect on children\u2019s reports.\r\n\r\nOne mechanism that could lead to inaccurate reports when the interviewer is misled is the use of suggestive questions, but that is not the only one. Interviewers may behave in ways that let the child know what is expected; they may nod or smile when the child says something that is consistent with their hypothesis, and the child may pick up on these subtle cues and respond in the way interviewers expect. Also, interviewers are more likely to recall and accept statements from the child that are consistent with their hypothesis.\r\n

    Avoid Suggestions<\/h4>\r\nThe topic of suggestibility was discussed in more detail earlier in this chapter. At this point it is enough to say that suggestive questions are dangerous and may lead to reports that are inaccurate or are judged to be inaccurate.\r\n

    Use Appropriate Question Format<\/h4>\r\nInterviewers should use open-ended questions and encourage the child to elaborate. There is convincing evidence that responses to open-ended questions are more accurate than responses to specific questions. The substantive portion of the interview should start with an open invitation (e.g., \u201cCan you tell me why you are here today?\u201d). If the child provides a partial disclosure, the interviewer should use an open prompt to invite the child to say more (e.g., \u201cTell me everything that happened\u201d) followed by open-ended prompts as appropriate (e.g., \u201cWhat happened next?\u201d). If the initial invitation does not lead to even a partial disclosure, the interviewer must decide whether to introduce the topic with more directive questions (e.g., \u201cHas anything happened to you that you would like to tell me about?\u201d) or to conduct the interview later.\r\n\r\nWhen it appears that the child has said all that he or she can recall in response to open prompts, there may still be details missing from the report. In this case, some specific prompts may be necessary. The interviewer should begin with \u201cwh\u201d questions (who, what, where, when, but not why). Directive questions can be leading, so it is important to restrict direct questions to details already raised by the child (e.g., if the child mentioned a car, the interviewer may ask \u201cWhat colour was the car?\u201d or \u201cWhere did you go in the car?\u201d).\r\n\r\nAlthough leading questions should be avoided, they are sometimes necessary to obtain all forensically relevant information from a child. When they are necessary, interviewers should avoid the following circumstances, which may heighten the negative effect of suggestive questions (Perona, Bottoms, & Sorenson, 2006):\r\n