Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
To suggest that the reliability of the memories of child witnesses had been a controversial issue for quite some time is definitely an understatement. There has been a variety of research and discussions worldwide about an ongoing controversy issue in the forensic psychology field. Should a child be able to testify as an eyewitness? An eyewitness testimony is provided by an individual who was present during an incident and could recall what happened from start to finish.
Throughout many cases, including those without any proper evidence, an eyewitness can have a strong impact on the case and assist with the final verdict made by the jury. Nonetheless, an eyewitness testimony can alter the life of an individual by helping assist finding if they are innocent or guilty, it is crucial that the eyewitness is a credible one. An individual, especially a child, tends usually changes their mind by questioning themselves and trying to ensure the way they are thinking, or feeling is right.
Legal professions and social scientists have put their attention as to whether they can depend on young children’s abilities to provide credible testimony to eyewitnesses. It was also reported that on many instances, they depend on testimonies from child witnesses, some of which are physical and sexual abuse cases.
Children’s credibility as eyewitnesses is still debated due to their memory capacity, the possibility that children can be easily influenced and because they may overlook some very significant details in the period between the incident of the case and the testimony. As a result, there has been a significant rise in scientific research in eyewitness competence for adolescents, with studies showing that very young children are far worse than younger adults. Considerable research has been done on children’s memory. As predicted, the visual attention of children which is closely linked to memory, seems to increase as they get older. Pezdek (1987) supported this concept based on the theory of schematic treatment that demonstrated that not having the needed schema to link to memory, it is not recorded in memory as detailed as the given stimulus of an older individual (Oates, 1990). The child’s memory recall will then be unreliable as they lack the understanding of the information that needs to be presented during the interview.
However, a variety of studies have been done on how credible the child’s testimony is. With time, studies have begun to show that information from children is credible. In a study conducted by the National Science Foundation in 2008, it was discovered that the legal system had concerns about the negative light that is shed on the topic of children testimonies. The National Science Foundation (2008) found that people had two forms memory which are ‘gist trace’ and ‘verbatim trace’. Their research showed that children have more ‘verbatim trace’, but as they get older, their ‘gist trace’ starts to develop more. Therefore, children’s memories are more credible than adults and can provide credible evidence (The National Science Foundation, 2008).
Reyna and Brainerd advocated for the same study. They claimed that memories are store and documented independently and distinctly in two areas of the mind. Studies show that significance-based memories particularly in adult witnesses, are primarily responsible for false memories (Reyna & Brainerd, 2012).
The concern with most children’s memory experiments is that they document things that are shown to kids on slides, in videos, or told to them as stories. A study conducted by Goodman and Helgeson (1985) in which 3-year-olds, 6-year-olds, and adults spent five minutes communicating with an unknown individual and then checking their memory of this experience four to five days later (Oats, 1990). It was discovered that 93% of the 6-year-olds and 75% of the adults were able to correctly recognize the individual in a line up but only 38% of the 3-year-olds were able to give a detailed account of what happened. It is suggested that if children are free to recall and are asked simple questions, they will be able to recount events accurately.
Experts believe that children presume that an adult would not perform the task if the goal was not present, so when the children are confronted with the lineup, it indicates the to the child that the adult wants them to choose someone. Thus, the children will choose someone to avoid either deceiving the adult and avoiding accepting confusion or they may also choose someone who looks similar to the target they have seen before.
In line up identifying experiments, young children behave at a level similar to young adults when the lineup displayed includes the real perpetrator but when it does not, there are more false identifications (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998). There are many explanations why a younger child may provide inaccurate information when it comes to being an eyewitness. Some of the reasons are false memories, deceiving suggestions, intimidation, or some form of abuse which would cause the allegations from children noncredible.
They also mentioned that the young children may feel under pressure to report whether or not the suspect is properly remembered. Statements from children can be made more credible right from the beginning of the interviewing process by having the child make a statement as quickly as possible and ensuring that the right people, such as the guardian, are involved.
Having numerous individuals interact with the child during the case is not appropriate as this could confuse or pressure the child. Children could easily be controlled and led on, because they are still young and reliant on someone else. They will speak for the people they meet with knowing the repercussions. Making suggestions during the interview can also alter their statements, making their statements not credible (Brainered & Reyna, 2012).
The environment where the child is being questioned is important. It is important to have the environment as comfortable as possible so that the child is able to give a credible statement. If the child is not comfortable, that could lead to unreliable statement. A study was completed by Pozzulo and Lindsay and it was suggested that children see adults as authority figures, so the children are not aware that they have an option of saying they do not know something. Therefore, they do not use the phrase as adults would in a similar situation.
Children should be able to provide a credible eyewitness testimony in order to make sure false convictions are not made, under the condition that they are not adequately examined and are competent enough to give a credible testimony. Since children are more vulnerable than adults, they can be misled by the questions being asked. The reliability of the child’s memory not only depends on the style of questioning but also the type of questions that are being asked during the interview. It has shown that when prompted to openly remember the incident, children will accurately recollect the event that took place (Pipe, 1996). But, being that these children are young and not familiar with different concepts and/or ideas, some may not be able to understand. Therefore, they will not be able to describe everything they have seen and prove to be a credible witness.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.