The primary goal of a Forensic Interview is to gather evidence and find the truthful facts about case. When interviewing children, having thorough knowledge of child development can help facilitate a better more forensically defensible interview because children do not yet have the ability to think, comprehend and express language and recall events in the same way that adults do. Having knowledge of a child’s developmental level can allow the interviewer to gather the information from the child by asking questions and using language that is developmentally appropriate and based on the child’s age and cognition level.
One example of how a child’s developmental level may impact our ability to gather reliable information would be the child’s ability to remember or recall the event. We have learned that children as young as 3 and 4 years old have the ability to recall events that had happened to them. Younger
…show more content…
During a forensic interview, children have to report verbally about the event that took place. Younger children have difficulty staying on topic and often need verbal redirection or topic focused prompts to stay on the event that is being discussed. Another example of how a child’s developmental level may impact our ability to gather reliable information from a child during a forensic interview is language and communication errors. Language and communication errors can occur due to a child’s perception and understanding of language being used during the interview and it may be different then adults. It is important for the interviewer to ask the child to define what they mean, if the child says things that are unclear or unrelated to the topic. Younger children also lack the ability to verbalize events in a chronological
Once that a juvenile needs to be interviewed in regards to the investigation of a fire the interview should be done in a quiet area or room free of noise, distractions, and interruptions. One mindset of the juvenile fire setter is to demonstrate that authority figures have no impact on them and will demonstrate a “bad attitude”. The ability to annoy and frustrate an investigator is rewarding to them. One way to counteract this tactic is to ignore it as best as possible. The investigator needs to stay on track and keep the focus on the goal of getting the needed information. The investigator needs to be clear to the juvenile the purpose of the interview and expectations beforehand. The investigator needs to open with what will happen to the
So the question remains, Can we rely on children? Under unbiased, highly trained, standardized ways of interviewing.....the answer is yes. Clinicians who have had the training necessary to evaluate and judge are completely capable of interviewing these children because children are indeed competent and qualified to testify on the witness stand. Open ended questioning, yes-no questioning, selective questioning (man or woman) and identification questioning (what time was it?) are key ways of interviewing to provide for accurate recollection. And when a child is asked these questions in a neutral way, you can believe that they are telling the truth.
The forensic interview process happens when children have been abused or witnessed a violent act. “Every year more than 3 million reports of child abuse are made in the United States involving more than 6 million children (a report can include multiple children) (National Child Abuse Statistics).” In the United States there are about four to seven children that die every day due to child abuse and neglect (National Child Abuse Statistics). There are many different processes to conduct the interview and a number of steps are followed so children can tell their story accurately. People conducting the interview are supposed to make the child feel comfortable in their environment so they can find out what events happened.
Roesch, R., Zapf, P. A., & Hart, S. D. (2010). Forensic psychology and law. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Overall, though, I believe that Stein is the closest scholar here-mentioned to have accounted for the explanation behind these controversies. The main mistake made by many modern scholars lies in the planning and the research – too much effort is spent on seeking to explain this opposition between the Proculians and the Sabinians in terms of two internally coherent law schools which differ entirely and have held controversies stemming from a specific occurrence. I have personally, as a student of the Roman law, found it difficult in reading the sources and differing theories from scholars to do just this – because, as Scarano Ussani stated, nowhere, in the mass of research that has been done, have any definitive results been reached. As afore-mentioned, I ruled out the political explanation for the purpose of answering this question, and the social explanation does not add a great deal to the debate for me. The theories supporting the social standpoint as addressed in this essay are among the worst for choosing to ignore many of the hard facts in order to make their theory fit better. This leaves only the philosophical and methodological explanations. The philosophical explanation is a reasonably sound one, although as explored above, I do believe that its significance has been largely exaggerated. There is no doubt over the fact that philosophy has played an influential role - even if you only look at Gaius’ ius gentium which contains a certain level of Stoic influence, but as mentioned above there are major differences which have been overlooked slightly in those arguments. The methodological explanation is another seemingly logical one, and the most reliable of all theorems explored in this essay, in my opinion, as it i...
Even though I am aware that there have been great strides forward, especially within the past decade, in the implementation of safer and more constructive methods, in regards to child interviewing practices, I am appalled at the gross negligence of our justice system, in their failure to protect children from the brutal onslaught of such damaging interrogation. Not only does it fail to safeguard a child’s health and well-fare, but it also proves counterproductive in the gathering of reliable testimony, and so therefore does not ultimately serve the constructs of justice, either.
For this study forensic evidence can be considered DNA evidence and/or trace evidence of any kind, included to but not limited to tire tracks, bullet casings, glass shards, fingerprints, and hair samples. Although this study proposes the idea that forensic evidence is more important it currently is not used frequently in the justice system. A study found that out of the cases they examined forensic evidence was collected in 37% of cases but only 18% of those cases were examined (Peterson, Hickman, Strom, Johnson, 2013). Another study found that 38% of participants said forensic evidence was hard to come by while 62% said they had spent time on victim credibility (Menaker, Campbell, Wells, 2016). This shows us that forensic evidence is not used frequently, and more time is spent on making a victim credible instead of finding evidence. It is the purpose of this study to determine if forensic evidence is more important than circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimony. If this can be determined than less time can be spent on things like victim credibility for testimonies, and more time can be spent on analyzing forensic
During the identification and prosecution of a suspect, eyewitnesses are of the utmost importance. They provide crucial information that determines the fate of the criminal, whether their memories are true to the event or slightly altered. Many eyewitnesses, being the victims of these crimes, have strong emotions related to the event. It has been found that emotions play a role in the accuracy and completeness of memories, especially in eyewitness testimony (Huston, Clifford, Phillips, & Memon, 2013). When emotions are negative in content, accuracy increases for memory of an event (Storbeck & Clore, 2005; Block, Greenberg, & Goodman, 2009). This finding holds true for all types of eyewitnesses, including children. There is no difference in memory between children and adults for aversive events, suggesting that the child eyewitness is just as capable as the adult eyewitness to give an accurate testimony (Cordon, Melinder, Goodman, & Edelstein, 2012). For my research paper, I will focus on the role of emotion in children’s eyewitness testimony.
Thousands of kid criminals in the United States have been tried as adults and sent to prison (Equal Justice Initiative). The debate whether these kids should be tried as adults is a huge controversy. The decision to try them or to not try them as an adult can change their whole life. “Fourteen states have no minimum age for trying children as adults” (Equal Justice Initiative). Some people feel that children are too immature to fully understand the severity of their actions. People who are for kids to be tried as adults feel that if they are old enough to commit the crime, then they are old enough to understand what they are doing. There are people who feel that children should only be tried as adults depending on the crime.
For both Cognitive and Forensic interviewing, it has been found to be more effective with older children than with younger for a variety of reasons. These reasons include the natural linguistic and cognitive development of children. Older children are more likely to remember the more information about the situation they experienced through a Cognitive interview than younger children, which suggests that may be most beneficial for them. Forensic interviewing should work better with younger children than Cognitive interviewing in that it allows freedom to give unique answers and considers the child’s age and developmental level more than a Cognitive interview does. In many interviews, children with intellectual disabilities need more prompting
Evidence provided in many courtroom cases can range from DNA samples, eyewitness testimony and video-recordings, to name a few. What happens when one of the main sources of information in a case comes from a child? Even worse, what if the child is the victim in the case? The topic of children participating and providing testimony in courtroom settings is an image that, presumably, most would not associate as a “usual” place for children. Yet in cases such as sexual abuse or violence towards a child or within the child’s family, it is not impossible to have cases where children are the predominant source of information provided for judges and jurors. Ref It is then important to consider the reliability of children’s testimonial accounts much like how adult testimonies are examined. The question of focus is then, to what extent can we rely on child eyewitnesses? Specifically, what factors influence the veracity of their testimonies?
Legal, ethical, and professional considerations all tie into each other when it comes to children. The first part of a criminal investigation before the court case would be the line ups and interviews. Line ups can be difficult for adults to do correctly especially when they do not really know the person, now put a traumatized child into the same situation. The child already has less of a memory than an adult, that encompassed with trauma may lead to inaccuracies with the line ups, particularly if someone looks close to the suspect but the actual suspect is not in the lineup. This part is not as crucial as the police may understand an incorrect suspect picked out if they look similar to the actual respondent. The second part of the investigation, which is much more vital, is the interview.
The children have to give evidence in front of a strange person, the solicitor. However children are often unwillingly speak to yet another stranger. Though the solicitor adhering ethics to not contact with the witnesses, it needs to be flexible in relation to child witnesses. Many occasions children ignore the role of the solicitor or the types of questions asked in order to take judiciary decisions. Before the trial, children have no chance of meeting the prosecutor or establishing a connection with DP till prior to giving their evidence.
Psychology is known as the study of the mind including human behaviors and processes that the mind goes through. However, psychology is a board major in which a student must specialist in order to further pursue a career that is designed for them. Forensic psychology is a narrow focus of the broader field of psychology, which requires a degree and a strong community to obtain a desired salary. With this field, a forensic psychologist works in a field of both law and criminal investigation. Therefore, this specialty allows for a mix of both psychology and the law to someone interested in both career paths.
Forensic Science is a application of a natural science which draws upon the principle and methods of all traditional science such as physics, chemistry , biology and mathematics in legal system. Forensic science include forensic medicine, odontology, anthropology, psychiatry, forensic toxicology, forensic radiology, forensic engineering.