Forcing a child to testify in a court trial can be very crucial or very damaging. A child’s testimony could very well be the evidence that is needed to put someone away for a long time. On the other hand, it is possible to damage that child psychologically, as they would have to relive the experience or scenario that is in question. Then we also have to consider, would a child testify in a certain way to get the outcome that they desire? Would a nine year old testify falsely against the safety of their parent’s so that they could go and live with the other parent? Children are often prize oriented and if someone tells a child that if the testify in a certain way, that there will be an outcome that is very favorable to that child, many times that …show more content…
I think if you will examine the law to this sore of hearing, it is not supposed to be argued, and they are not considered proper witnesses. The court is not supposed to consider in determining a custody, the desires of the children and, in view of their ages, I don’t think I particularly care to entertain their testimony.” This is a controversial ruling because, if the court is unwilling to allow the admission of the child’s testimony, it becomes much more difficult to find convincing proof that the children should be placed into the custody of their father. The sixth amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against you is heavily involved with child testimony. Nobody wants to force a child to have to sit in a courtroom, in front of someone who has physically and/or mentally abused them, and tell a room full of strangers what happened to them. In Coy v. Iowa, John Coy was tried for sexually assaulting two 13-year-old girls. When the girls were testifying, a screen was placed in front of Coy so that the girls could not see him. At the end of the trial, a jury found Coy guilty. The Supreme Court ruled that Coy’s sixth amendment right was
Procedural History The Supreme Court, Appellate, second division modified the the judgment and ordered that the custody of the youngest child remain with the mother. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jasen,J; held that after the custody of the two older children had been awarded to the husband, it was appropriate for special term to award of the youngest child to the husband in the light of the younger child’s ambivalence as to which of her parents she would prefer to live with and her strong preference to live with two older
Rule: 1. Justice White, speaking for the majority believes that the decision in this case is similar to Bell v. Burson, in which held that the state could not deprive a person of there drivers license pertaining to a speeding violation without a hearing. He stated: "The states interest in caring for Stanley’s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanley’s unfitness solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove. 2. They concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody. Denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. 3. The rule of law that justifies the holding of the case is: "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state may neither supply nor hinder" (Prince v. Mass.). 4. "The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.
More than 200,000 children may be involved in the legal system in any given year, and 13,000 of these children are preschool age. Often with these cases involving young children, issues arise concerning credibility, vulnerability, and memory retrieval. Studies have shown that preschool age children are quite capable of providing accurate testimony, but they are also more vulnerable to distorting this memory and testimony. Public and professional opinion about the credibility of children as witnesses in court cases has been sharply divided. On one side, it is contended that when children disclose details of a circumstance, they must be believed, no matter what techniques were used to obtain this disclosure. For example, if a child is asked whether or not he/she was abused, and to describe this incident, we must believe that child because children cannot possibly generate a false report of their own sexual victimization. The other side depicts children as being helpless sponges ...
“The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ‘no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ U.S. Const. amend. V. The related provision in the Tennessee Constitution states that ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the accused . . . shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.’ Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9.” State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. 2000). The Supreme court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that before a subject can be questioned by the police they must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, that they have a right to an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation
The sixth amendment is indeed a right that carries tremendous importance with its name. It constitutes for many protections which Mallicoat (2016) summarizes by saying it “provides for the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of one’s peers in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Provides the right to be informed of the nature of the charges, to confront witnesses against oneself, and present witnesses in one’s defense. Provides the right to an attorney.” Having an impartial jury of one’s peers is extremely important in efforts to eliminate bias and a subjective, limited range of mindsets. If this cannot be obtained in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed, one may request trial to be held elsewhere, such as in the case
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
With the current crime rates on the rise, the justice system is trying to reduce adult criminals by strictly prosecuting juvenile offenders as adults. Many people believe that in doing so will scare the criminals back on the straight path and help to lower the crime rate. Trying a juvenile as an adult will have no effect on reducing crimes, corrective behaviors, or a juvenile’s comprehension ability.
In the United States criminal justice system, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. With this concept in mind, the accused are given many rights to a fair trial. One of those rights falls under the sixth amendment in the United States Constitution. The confrontation clause reads, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law defines the confrontation clause as, “A fundamental right of a defendant in a criminal action to come face-to-face with an adverse witness in the court’s presence so the defendant has a fair chance to object the testimony of the witness, and the opportunity to cross-examine him or her” (Lehman & Shirelle, 2005, p. 85) The confrontation clause is essential to due process and pertains to the federal and state court. In some circumstances the accused is not being given the right to confront witness testimony face-to-face because the justice system grants exceptions to this constitutional right.
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.
There are millions of adults in federal prison, but The United States is the only country in the world that condemns children to die in prison (Pequeneza, 2014). It’s sad to think about children being sentenced to life in prison, and frankly it is a disturbing and a scary fact to face. However, in recent years the U.S Supreme Court has made it illegal to charge juveniles with life sentencing for anything less than murder (Pequeneza, 2014). This new law gives children a second chance at life when they are finally released from prison. Many children are forced to be in a household that is not suitable for a developing child. Children are mistreated, neglected, abused, and other factors. These unfit situations that children are in make them more likely to become violent, and maybe end up in juvenile
The criminal justice system, in the United States, has been very slow in recognizing and competently employing the substantial volume of relevant research data that has been available, for the past century, on the subject of the significant differences in the psychological and neurological differences between children and adults. In Europe, there was substantial and illuminating research being carried out, at the turn of the 20th century. In the work of Alfred Binet (1900), on external forces of suggestibility, free recall, and the inherent pressures resulting from a child’s eagerness to please adults, and William Stern’s (1910) research, on the detrimental effects of repeated questioning and leading questions, which were found to literally alter future recall of the same event, there was an emergence of much valuable insight into the subject of child witness testimony (Bruck, 1993, p. 406). An explanation of why the U.S. was so slow to embrace these valuable findings lies in the differences in the judicial systems, of these countries.
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.
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.
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.