Introduction
The current interest devoted to child safety, to advance the value of their lives, and to ensure that their rights are appreciated. However, their rights have unavoidably influenced the legal field, and predominantly, the study of a child witness, particularly in sexual misuse cases. This further resulted in a heated debate, concerning forensic interviewers. Some researchers argue that interviewers also have their own discrimination, attitudes, and anticipations about a confrontation for which a child has been called upon to give evidence. There are also those who argue that the board of judges, legal representatives, and consultants can more or less deliberately manipulate children’s evidence by telling what replies they wish to hear, thus ultimately inducing children to narrate fictional details, which are typically a consequence of suggestibility and fantastic action. This research paper will attempt to capture issues related to child testimony more so in the issue of child abuse and finally problems different people experience in this field. It is very tricky to achieve precise information from young children. (Weiner&et al 22).
Research development
According to research, an estimated 200,000 children are caught up in the legal system annually, a quarter of this more often are in the preschool age. The majority of such cases are mainly in sexual abuse. While even preschool-age kids are relatively competent in presenting truthful evidence, they are also more susceptible to having their statements and their reminiscences distorted in such a manner that, it is at times impossible to know the truth. As a result, the public and expert view about the integrity of children as eyewitnesses in sexual mistreatment cases has resulted in sharp divisions. We find that they are those who hold the idea that children reveal information of sexual cruelty, no matter what methods are put in place to acquire their revelation; therefore they hold the assumption that children do not create fake information of their individual sexual discrimination. While there are those that believe that children are as powerless as sponges who saturate up interviewers’ submissions and repeat these ideas in court. (Durston 218).
In the past two decades, the United States has witnessed a remarkable increase in cases of sexual abuse. The tendency has been persistent in recent years. The number of such cases growing progressively from 325,000 in the late 1980s to virtually half a million in the early 1990s. Regrettably, because of its very nature, child sexual mistreatment typically happens in secret with no observer other than the supposed executor and the casualty. Therefore, examiners must rely on children’s accounts or bodily proof so as to establish whether or not claims of sexual abuse are legitimate. Medical proof, nevertheless, is hardly ever adequate to recognize a precise executor, due to the mere fact that many forms of sexual abuse hardly leave any bodily signs. Consequently, when bodily verification is absent, the only outstanding option is to attain information from the child witness. (Bartol&Bartol 236).
Research methods
Researchers have used different methods to study child testimony, some of the major research methods in use include Naturalistic observation. Here children are watchfully observed in their normal setting without meddling by the researchers. Researchers here should be ordinary and do nothing to alter the surroundings or behavior of the children. This technique is excellent if the researcher wants participants to be reacting usually but it can be time-consuming, the required behavior may also never happen, there is also no power over the setting and it is tricky to know if the researcher will be able to absolutely be inconspicuous. (Myers 845).
Survey Method: This method entails questioning a big group of children about certain occurrences and this could comprise their response towards something, their attitudes, and way of life. Carrying out a survey calls for a representative sample or a sample that replicates all major characteristics of the population you want to symbolize. Surveys must also use cautious phrasing in the questions to avoid uncertainty or prejudice. This method is very fast and resourceful; however, it is sometimes hard to gain profound facts from a survey and there is no assurance that the person taking the survey is being open and sincere. (Durston 211).
Case Study: This involves obtaining thorough information about an individual to develop common philosophy about behavior. It is sometimes very accommodating to study one kid or a very small group of children in great depth to learn as much information as possible. Case studies need a lot of time, effort, and attention to detail. Yet; they disclose more about a particular topic than any other study method. Generalizing the finding to other people or groups is typically complex. (Weiner&et al 10).
Correlation Design: This research method involves determining the relation between two variables. Sometimes, correlation studies are seen as a separate research method while other times it is listed under another group. Correlations are affirmed as either positive or negative. Positive correlations denote that as the value of one variable goes up, the value of the other variable goes up or vice versa while, negative correlations indicate that as the value of one variable goes up, the value of the other variable goes down. Correlations can be misleading. Finding a major correlation between 2 variables does not warranty that they are the only two variables. (Bartol&Bartol 244).
Experimental Method: This is a study in which the researcher influences at least one variable while measuring at least one other variable. This technique is frequently used in psychological research and can potentially lead to answering cause-effect questions. This is the main technique used to study the consistency of eyewitness testimony in young children. Participants in an experiment are generally haphazardly assigned to diverse groups. The group that obtains the independent variable is called the experimental group and the group of participants are treated in the way as the experimental group but do not obtain the independent variable is called the control group. Occasionally a preexisting trait already exists in the participants, such as sex, age, and clinical diagnosis. In this case, there is no accidental assignment and the type of research is referred to as differential research. The experimental method is very important since the researcher is able to restrain or manage the situation and different variables. (Myers 832-834).
Typical findings
We find that, while preschool-age children are competent in giving forensically appropriate evidence, they are more susceptible than elder children who are, in turn, more susceptible than adults. During indicative interviewing methods and repetitive questioning, children can be led to get incorrect not only nonessential particulars, but the middle idea of actions they went through, even incidents distressing their bodies that may possibly have sexual allegations. There is no ‘Pinocchio Test’ to establish whether claims that materialize after repetitive interviews using indicative systems are correct or purely the product of the evocative interview actions. Whenever probable interviews with children in suits where sexual misuse is alleged should be preserved by electronic means example by video-taping. Preferably from the initial interview. (Bartol&Bartol 203).
Problems in the field
Some of the key problems in this field are that the children do not only endure the shock of mistreatment but also regularly, the extra trauma of post-abuse involvement by diverse people example the police officers, jury, parents, teachers, social workers, and psychologists, who must consult the child continually and for a range of reasons. Another major problem in this field is different interviewing used to obtain the testimony since they are said to result in misinformation. By and large, the younger the child the more probable the child will admit someone’s else explanation of an event if it bears a similarity to the original incident, such methods include: repeated questioning which results in the child changing the original answer due to loss of self-assurance on what they could have said early, deferred questioning, evocative and ambiguous interviewing, the emotional tenor of the interview ex-ample if the interviewer generates an emotional tone of the indictment, and the rank of the person carrying out the interview is said to have a major unenthusiastic impact on the evidence which is acquired from the child mainly because kids are more prone to trust adults than other kids. In addition, if the interviewer has a prejudice that sexual abuse took place, the interviewer’s means of questioning is negatively affected and the child’s reply or evidence could be reliable with the interviewer’s partiality. There is also the issue of peer pressure; interviewers commonly like referring to a child of similar age to induce a child to confess to a certain allegation or even intimidate to inform other children that the child failed to collaborate during the interview process. (Durston 224).
Discussion and conclusion
Both from the systematic psychosomatic group and from the legal society, solemn fears have been raised about the correctness and consistency of evidence pertaining to children in alleged sexual abuse cases. A multitude of inappropriate interviewing methods have been recognized, all of which can critically compromise the dependability of testimony acquired straight from a child. Unacceptable questioning techniques may permanently foul the proof from the child, making a determination of what actually took place unworkable. Deliberations of the appropriate process of law are notable, principally when it might be argued that unacceptable interviewing techniques, as well as uncertainty and misperception in gossip, can complex other risks to the truth. Videotaping all interviews can be advocated on several grounds. Videotaping simply permits analysis of the interviewing ways and exactness in relating what emerged, but also may guard the child against the trauma of repetitive, indicative, and perhaps even coercive interviews. In alleged sexual abuse suits, the approach in which interviews have been performed and evidence handled has not been excellent skill, good medical practice, and possibly not even fine law. Techniques of interviewing lack scientific impartiality and insight. The rumor which lacks adequate indicia of consistency would then be unsuccessful to meet the criterion for acceptability. Both inappropriate interviewing and imprecise hearsay could very well fail to guarantee due process of law. These worries are justifiably disturbing to all concerned; therefore the time for considerate deliberation of the process of examining and trying supposed sexual abuse cases has certainly come. When all is said and done it is therefore clear that it is very tricky to achieve precise information from young children. We should therefore be very careful when dealing with testimonies from children, to ensure that justice is achieved where it is due. (Myers 856).
Work cited
Bartol, A. &Bartol, C.Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Justice.SAGE.2006.ISBN:1412925908
Bartol, A. &Bartol, C.Introduction to ForensiPsychology.SAGE.2004.ISBN:0761926062.
Dorsten, B.Forensic psychology: From Classroom to Courtroom.Springer.2002.ISBN:0306472708.
Myers, J.Myers on Evidence in Child, Domestic, and Elder Abuse Cases. Aspen Publishers online.2005.ISBN:0735556687.
Weiner, B&et al.Handbook of Psychology. John Wiley and Sons.2003.ISBN:047138321X.