Ground Rules in Forensic Interviews: Should We Make Practice More Applied?

<p>Introducing ground rules is recommended in many forensic interview best-practice protocols, but children do not always use them when they should. There is not yet a consensus in the literature on the best way to teach the rules, and many of the practice methods researched are not feasible for practitioners. Additionally, increased intensity of practice can lead to adverse effects on other aspects of child testimony too. We draw on cognitive learning literature to understand how to better facilitate ground rule use amongst children in forensic interviews. Ninety-three children between the ages of 5-12 from Greater Wellington region, New Zealand, participated in a staged event at their school and were interviewed using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol (Lamb et al., 2018) 2-3 weeks later. At the interview, children practised the ground rules ‘I don’t know’ (IDK), ‘I don’t understand’ (IDU) and ‘Correct me’ (CM) in one of four ways which varied by the degree of match between the practice and interview context. Children were asked difficult questions designed to elicit the rules throughout the interview, and coding children’s accuracy of reporting also examined the broader effects of practice method and rule use. No significant effects were found between the practice method and responses to difficult questions for the IDK and CM rules. The Control condition, which received no ground rules instruction or practice, was significantly different to the other practice conditions for the IDU rule. In addition to this, there was no significant effect of practice method or competency at using ground rules on children’s general accuracy about the event. Several possible explanations for this pattern of results are explored in the discussion section.</p>

Ground Rules in Forensic Interviews: Should We Make Practice More Applied?

<p>Introducing ground rules is recommended in many forensic interview best-practice protocols, but children do not always use them when they should. There is not yet a consensus in the literature on the best way to teach the rules, and many of the practice methods researched are not feasible for practitioners. Additionally, increased intensity of practice can lead to adverse effects on other aspects of child testimony too. We draw on cognitive learning literature to understand how to better facilitate ground rule use amongst children in forensic interviews. Ninety-three children between the ages of 5-12 from Greater Wellington region, New Zealand, participated in a staged event at their school and were interviewed using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol (Lamb et al., 2018) 2-3 weeks later. At the interview, children practised the ground rules ‘I don’t know’ (IDK), ‘I don’t understand’ (IDU) and ‘Correct me’ (CM) in one of four ways which varied by the degree of match between the practice and interview context. Children were asked difficult questions designed to elicit the rules throughout the interview, and coding children’s accuracy of reporting also examined the broader effects of practice method and rule use. No significant effects were found between the practice method and responses to difficult questions for the IDK and CM rules. The Control condition, which received no ground rules instruction or practice, was significantly different to the other practice conditions for the IDU rule. In addition to this, there was no significant effect of practice method or competency at using ground rules on children’s general accuracy about the event. Several possible explanations for this pattern of results are explored in the discussion section.</p>

THE POSITION OF CHILD TESTIMONY IN SEXUAL OFFENCES IN SHARIAH AND CIVIL LEGISLATION IN MALAYSIA

Testimony is an important method of proof of evidence used in courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine previous studies and research related to testimony by children involved in sexual offences in courts. The focus of this paper would be on the provisions of laws relating to evidence given by a child as an accused and victim; and the procedures applicable in Malaysia based on the three existing courts i.e. Shariah Courts compared with Courts for Children and Courts for Sexual Offences Against Children i.e. to explore relevant issues on its admissibility for further review and reform. The outcome from this study will ascertain whether the current laws are adequate to protect the rights of child during trial.

Strength of provision and law protection of children's witnesses

The purpose of this study is to explain the concept of a child witness according to the criminal evidence proving law, and how the protection for children as a witness, as well as how the strength of evidence of child testimony in the criminal justice system. This research is normative legal research that focuses on secondary data by describing the execution of religious courts in regulating child custody cases. The type of data used is the type of primary data and secondary data. Analysis of the data used is a qualitative way with the legislation approach, case approach, and analysis approach. The results showed that the concept of a child's Witness does not qualify as valid witness evidence. Children as Witnesses are entitled to receive legal protection as regulated in the Child Protection Act and the Criminal Justice System for Children and the Witness and Victim Protection Act. The strength of proof of a child's testimony only has value if it is connected with other evidence.

THE ROLE OF SUGGESTIBILITY IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS: CASE REPORT

Suggestibility is the degree to which someone res­ponds to and is influenced by suggestions made by someone or something. Scientific studies have shown that suggestibility most often correlates with memory processing, false memory and false confession phe­nomena and is crucial to child testimony and forensic psychological examination. Traditionally, there are two general suggestibility re­search approaches: the experimental psychology and the individual difference approach. Experimentally designed studies reflect the effects of misinformation – conditions under which suggestions affect recall of events. The individual difference approach seeks to identify people as being more or less suggestible, re­lating different degrees of suggestibility with several cognitive and personality variables. Both approaches suggest that certain social, cognitive and psycholo­gical factors affect the accuracy of a person`s report (testimony). The current article will focus primary on the accuracy of children reports in the context of forensic psycho­logical examination. The inaccuracy can be due to unconscious assimilation of false suggestions and pressure made by those (usually adults) who have access to the child (suggestibility) or to conscious lies on the part of the child. Some data extractions from research in relation to factors affecting the accuracy of children`s reports during forensic psychological examinations and overall children`s testimonies will be provided. In this context, a case study from fo­rensic psychological examination will be discussed.