Samenvatting

Summary Task 5 - Credibility Assessment In Court: Do Children Lie?

2 keer verkocht

Instelling
Maastricht University (UM)

Summary of Task 5 in Forenisc & Legal Psychology in a Nutshell

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 2 van de 15 pagina's

Bekijk voorbeeld

Geupload op 8 oktober 2023
Aantal pagina's 15
Geschreven in 2023/2024
Type Samenvatting

cbca
reality monitoring
supreme court crtieria
judgement accuracy
statement consistency
characteristics rel
rm
end of sequence response mode
step by step response mode
repeat vs reconstruct hypothesis

€3,49

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel v.a. €6,49

In winkelwagen

Opslaan

100% tevredenheidsgarantie
Direct beschikbaar na je betaling
Lees online óf als PDF
Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel (1)

Forensic & Legal Psychology - Tasks 4-6

€ 10,47 € 6,49

1x verkocht

3 items

1. Samenvatting - Task 4 - the sleepwalking killer
2. Samenvatting - Task 5 - credibility assessment in court: do children lie?
3. Samenvatting - Task 6 - profiling
Meer zien

TASK 5 – CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT IN
COURT: DO CHILDREN LIE?
HOW CAN WE EVALUATE WHETHER A CHILD’S TESTIMONY IS TRUE?

COURT EVALUATIONS OF YOUNG CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE (CSA) CASES
(ERNBERG ET AL.)

Criteria-Based  Consists of a number of criteria suggested to occur more frequently in
Content Analysis truthful than deceptive statements (e.g., unexpected details, external
(CBCA) relations)
 Carried out as part of statement validity assessment

Reality  Consists of criteria to discern whether one’s memory stems form
monitoring (RM) external OR internal source

 Both CBCA & RM have success rate around 70% in discriminating between truthful &
deceptive statements
 Both are more successful in singling out truthful statements than deceptive ones
 Rarely used in practice
 Sweden – assessment of testimonies not regulated by law
 Supreme Court can advise on such matters in legal precedents – they are not binding
o Criteria come without training / guidelines, no reference points for criteria
o Unclear by what comparison testimony should be e.g., rich in detail
o Precedents don’t include clear definitions of concepts
o Criteria do not derive from research BUT experience in criminal cases  varying
degree of scientific support
 Concern: children’s testimonies may be held to standards of adults  don’t comply
with their witness ability
 Children as young as can give reliable testimony
 This study: investigates criteria used by courts to assess testimony given by young
children in CSA cases

Methods  Collected verdicts issued by Swedish Courts involving complainants < 7
years during abuse
 70 cases, involving 100 complainants were identified

Results District  Convicted defendant on at least 1 charge of abuse in 80% of cases
Courts  Sig. relation between corroborative strength of evidence &
outcome in court
 96% of cases with strong corroborative evidence resulted in
conviction
 Court was more likely to apply Supreme Court criteria in cases

, with evidence of LOW corroborative value

Courts of  45 of 100 complainants had their cases tried in Courts of Appeal
Appeal  62% the defendant was convicted on at least 1 charge of abuse
 80% of cases Court of Appeal came to same conclusion as
District Courts

DISCUSSION

 Supreme Court criteria used to assess young children’s testimony
 At least 1 criterion applied to assess testimony in 66% of District Court & 33% of Court of
Appeal cases
 Most frequently used criterion: richness in detail (met in 66% of assessments)
o Used against reliability of testimony in almost halve the cases which didn’t meet
criterion
o Children have limited ability to provide detailed testimony about CSA – still
most cases met criterion
 Could indicate that prosecuted cases involved children capable of giving
detailed testimony
 Judges may take children’s age into account in testimonial assessment
 2 nd
most used criterion: whether testimony was spontaneous or not
o Can be problematic – many children don’t disclose CSA spontaneously
 Length criterion – affected reliability of testimony negatively each time it wasn’t
fulfilled
 20% of cases – Court of Appeal changed verdict
 Most common reason – disagreement regarding complainant’s testimony

FINDINGS CONFIRM CONCERNS THAT CRITERIA ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT ARE USED IN EVALUATION OF
YOUNG CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY.

LIMITATIONS

 Study is dependent on what was reported by judges in the verdict  might not reflect
reality
 Details from testimony that influenced judge’s decision-making might have gone
unreported

CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT IN CSA INVESTIGATIONS: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS (MELKMAN & ZUR)

 No reliable method that can accurately distinguish between truthful & false statements
 Several components of CBCA have been validated – BUT on average 1/3 of judgements are
incorrect
 Professionals are often unable to distinguish between truthful & deceptive events
 Incorrect assessments (in both directions) can have various negative consequences

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.