How Developmentally Appropriate - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

How Developmentally Appropriate

A

re Direct- And Cross-examinations Of Children In Scotland?

University of Cambridge, UK

Samantha J. Andrews

Michael E. Lamb

2

2

Context

Considerable concern and debate

Accused’s right to a fair trial

Allow witnesses to give their best evidence

Challenge witness credibility

Suggestive

“He didn’t touch you, did he?”

Closed-ended, repetitious

Linguistically complex

3

Question Types and Children’s Responses in Court

Suggestive

(

Andrews et al., 2015a;

Klemfuss

et al., 2014;

Zajac

et al., 2003)

Repetitious

(Andrews et al., 2015b)

Linguistically complex (Evans et al., 2009; Hanna et al., 2012)

Andrews, Lamb, & Lyon (2015)California, N = 120, 6-12 years, 1997-2001Defense – more suggestive (42%); more contradictions

Suggestive = more self-contradictions

4

Context

Cases dealt with justly with current legislation?

Training, special measures, Section 28

Use varies widely

Effectiveness not evaluated

Lord

Carloway

– “The lack of readily identifiable exemplars elsewhere should

not be a reason to draw back from seeking to modernise the justice system. It is the opportunity for Scotland to take a lead...”

(Evidence and Procedure Review Report, Section 5.7, March 2015)

Present study

5

Child age, lawyer role (prosecution/

defence

):

Question type

Frequency of self-contradictions

Children’s acquiescence and resistance

Defense worse, effects worse, no age effects

6

Sample

6

36 trials, 56 children

Scotland, 2009 – 2014

5 – 17 years,

M

age

=

13.9 (

SD

= 2.7)

Under 13, 14 – 15, 16 – 1720% boysVariety of alleged sexual abuse. Special measures Defendants

Question Types

Code

Examples

1. Invitation

“Earlier you mentioned [person/object/action].

Tell me more about that.”

2. Directive

“Who did that to you?” [when

‘that’ was previously mentioned by the child]

3. Option-posing

“Did you see his penis?”

“Was the light

on or off?”

4.

Suggestive

“

Your dad told me

that B. touched your private part. Did B. touch your private part?”

Child:

“He took me into the toilet.”

Lawyer:

“When did he

lock the door

?”

7

Substantive only

Suggestive Question

T

ypes

8

Code

Examples

1. Confrontation

“You’re lying, aren’t you?” [when asked a 3

rd

time]

“So did he touch you once or more than once?” [when asked a 3

rd

time]

2. Supposition

Child

:

“Then I went to meet X.”

Lawyer:

“You met X. What did she tell you?” (when the child did not mention that X told anything)

3. Introduction

Child

:

“I went to the park…”

Lawyer:

“You said you went to

skate

park

.”

“You saw a gun, didn’t you?”

Tag questions

9

Children’s Responses

Self-contradictions

Acquiescent/resistant to suggestion

Results – Question Frequency

10

23,325 substantive questions (

M

= 417)

Prosecutors: 14,138 (

M

= 253)

Defence: 9,187 (

M

= 164)

Children under 13

 substantive prompts when questioned by prosecutors16- and 17-year-olds  substantive prompts when questioned by defence

Results – Question Types

11

Under 13 – prosecutor, fewer OP

Under 13 – defence, more directives and OP

14 and 15 – defence, more suggestive

Results -

Suggestive Question

Types

12

Under 13 – more confrontation and supposition, fewer introduction

14 and 15 – fewer confrontation than oldest

13

13

Results - Self-contradictions

n

= 973, 4.4% of all responses

Defence more – 6.5% vs 2.7%



invitations than OP



suggestive than all other prompt types

Prosecutors



from oldest than 14 and 15

Defence



from

youngest



supposition

14

14

Results – Acquiescence/Resistance

Acquiesced 68%, resisted 29%, unclear 2%

Defence





confrontations



suppositions than introduction



resistant to tagged

No age effects

15

Conclusions

15

Suggestive questions adversely affect responses

More serious during cross-examination

Lawyers were not sensitive to developmental capabilities and limitations

Implications

Further research

Thank you!

Samantha J. Andrews

sja57@cam.ac.uk

2

nd

year PhD Candidate

Department of Psychology

University of Cambridge, UK

Andrews, S. J.

&

Lamb, M. E. (under review). How developmentally appropriate are direct- and cross-examinations of children in Scotland?