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 …show more content…
Those ground rules mainly consisted of opening statements that let the child know it was alright to admit when they do not know the answer to a question. In both types of interviewing, when children were aware of the “rules” they were less likely to give wrong answers and were more likely to admit to the interviewer that they did not know. If children are not encouraged to admit when they do not know an answer, younger children tend to guess the answer. Forensic interviewing seemed to be more efficient with the ground rules than Cognitive interviewing though. In Forensic interviewing, the ground rules were explained before some running through some practice questions with the child. This allowed the child to better understand what was expected of them and the more practice questions that were asked, the better the child got at identifying those situations and answering correctly (Dickinson et al, …show more content…
None of the studies compared the two side-by-side which seemed to be a gap in the literature. If it has not already been done, the two forms of interviewing should be compared to better understand which individual aspects in each form work better than other aspects. There is the chance that a separate form of interviewing could be developed utilizing pieces of both Forensic interviewing and Cognitive interviewing. In the literature found, neither form was put to use with human trafficking victims which is another gap. Forensic interviewing, more than Cognitive interviewing, is being actively utilized with child sexual abuse cases and seems to be the best form of interviewing the field has at this time for those cases. It should then be utilized with human trafficking cases involving children as well since they can have many underlying similarities. For and form of interviewing to be utilized with human trafficking cases, it should be considered a specialization within that form. Human trafficking interviewers would need to be experienced in their form of interviewing and within the field in general. The interviewers would need to be prepared for what they may hear from each case and be better equipped to deal with the trauma associated. It is also beneficial to train some interpreters in Forensic and Cognitive interviewing as well, to lessen
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
...at because of the size of the children there would have been physical symptoms, no documented evidence of this sort was presented during the case. Out of 100 students no physical symptoms were ever recorded, and not one student said anything about abuse until four years later when the investigator was pursued (Silvergate, 2004) No parents ever filed complaints prior to police investigation. Because memories are malleable and children are even more vulnerable to authority, it is very probable that some children just complied to the leading questions due to fear, but is it possible that they all could? The influence of the investigators parallels to the influence of therapists in cases of sexually abused children's recovered memories.
This study examines the research that initially began on October 28, 2000 and spanned through to October 31, 2009. If a human trafficking case occurred in the US, with the victim being under the age of 18, and at least one arrested, indicted or convicted felon, their case would be filed in the data analysis report. This research resulted in the finding of 115 separate incidents of human trafficking, involving at least 153 victims and 215 felons or perpetrators, 117 (53.4%) of them being convicted of their heinous actions. Each individual case consisted of anywhere between 1 to 9 victims of trafficking. 90% of these victims were females between the ages of 5 to 17 years who were held captive from less than 6 months to 5 years. 25 (16.3%) of these minors were exploited through some type of false promise and 15 (9.8%) were kidnapped. 34 (22.2%) of the victims were abused through com...
“With the language in J.D.B. as a guide, there is now an open door that litigators can walk through to make a variety of challenges when a seasoned law enforcement officer questions an immature child” (Tepfer). Even Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the previous statement, adding that in future cases dealing with children the court should consider age and additional characteristics that could affect the person under interrogation. Because there is not a written rule that can be applied to all cases, there have still been many issues dealing with children subjected to police questioning. In the case People v. White, the primary focus was whether the officer should have known that the suspect was at an understanding of the Miranda warnings or if the suspect was in a position to make a self-incriminating
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.
Many of today’s interrogation models being utilized in police investigations have an impact on false confessions. The model that has been in the public eye recently is the social psychological process model of interrogation known as the “The Reid Technique.” There are two alternatives used by the police today to replace the Reid Technique, one is the PEACE Model and the other is Cognitive Interviewing. These methods are not interrogation techniques like Reid but interview processes.
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.
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.
Every day a child is called on to testify in a courtroom. Children who have to testify in open court are easily influenced by outside sources. This paper will show the reasons children should not be used as witnesses in a courtroom. I will show all the different influences that a child receives and prove them uncredible. The interview process can influence a child greatly. Ceci and Bruck (1995) found a study that shows that child witnesses may be questioned up to12 times during the course of an investigation. The questioning process can take up to a year and a half to be completed. Children are not capable of remembering exact details for that period. Their answers to questions will change each time he or she is asked. This is because they do not retain information in the same way as an adult. Most studies have shown that children start to lose their ability to recall an event accurately only 10 days after the original event has happened. Another factor in a child’s ability to recall an event is stress. A child can go into a shock stage and repress all memories of what has happened to them. These memories may not resurface for many years. This affects a child’s ability to identify the suspect in photo and live line-ups. The amount of stress a child goes through affects their ability to answer questions in an interview, if they cannot remember what has happened, how are they supposed to answer the myriad of questions the interviewer will ask them.
In order to understand how to compile evidence for criminal cases, we must understand the most effective types of evidence. This topic is interesting because there are ample amounts of cases where defendants have gotten off because of the lack of forensic evidence. If we believe forensic evidence is so important and it affects our decisions, then maybe we need to be educated on the reality of forensic evidence. If we can be educated, then we may have a more successful justice system. If we have a more successful justice system than the public could gain more confidence that justice will be served. In order to do this, we must find what type of evidence is most effective, this can be done by examining different types of evidence.
Lyon, T. D., Scurich, N., Choi, K., Handmaker, S., & Blank, R. (2012). "how did you feel?": Increasing child sexual abuse witnesses' production of evaluative information. Law and Human Behavior, 36(5), 448-457.
Forensic Psychology, which is occasionally referred to as Legal Psychology, originally made its debut in the late 1800’s. A Harvard Professor, Professor Munsterberg, introduced the idea of psychology and law with his book, On the Witness Stand in 1908. Since the inception of the idea of psychology and law there have been proponents, as well as though that have spoken against the theories proposed by Munsterberg’s, along with other scientists, theorists, and psychologists that believed that Forensic Psychology had no standing to be linked to topics of law. This literature review will attempt to identify scholarly articles that trace the origins and the movement that led to Forensics Psychology becoming a specialty within the field of psychology. I will also attempt to explain What is Forensic Psychology as well as the part it plays within the legal system.
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?
Child witnesses have provided a basis for controversy over the years in criminal justice. There are two main things that people worry about when it comes to having a child witness, one is the anxiety that is put on the child with regard to the traumatic experience and the other is dependability of the testimony. Child testimony has long been considered an important part of the case but what is to be done when there are questions regarding legal, ethical, and professional ways to interact with the children.
Beginning in the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s forensic psychology originated when a man named James McKeen Cattell conducted a study at Columbia University. During his time learning and coming up with the idea that psychology could be used as a way to solve court cases he did many experiments with his students. In one study he allowed 56 of his students practice eye witness testimonies with a series of questions. He conducted the experiment by asking the students about trees and asked the students to rate their confidence in what they saw and recall what they saw hours later. During this experiment Cattell...