Preview

Should Children Be Allowed to Testify in Court?

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2298 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Should Children Be Allowed to Testify in Court?
Should Children Be Allowed To Testify In Court?

Over the past ten years, more research has been done involving children's testimony than that of all the prior decades combined. Ceci & Bruck
(93) have cited four reasons for this :

- The opinion of psychology experts is increasingly being accepted by courts as testimony, - Social research is more commonly being applied to the issues of children's rights, - More research into adult suggestibility in accordance with reason naturally leads to more research into child suggestibility,

- Children are more commonly being used as witnesses in cases where they are directly involved (i.e. sexual abuses cases), requiring the development of better ways for dealing with them as special cases.

Some psychologists deem children to be "Highly resistant to suggestion, as unlikely to lie, and as reliable as adult witnesses about acts perpetrated on their bodies" (Ceci & Bruck 1993). However, children are also described as "
Having difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy, as being susceptible to coaching by powerful authority figures, and therefore as being potentially less reliable than adults" (Ceci & Bruck 1993). The suggestibility of child witnesses, the effects of participation on children's reports, and the effects of postevent information on a prior memory representation must be taken into account when it comes to seeking answers to the reliability of their testimony, especially because sexual abuse and sexual assault cases are a big part of children's testimony and they are often the only witness.

Those psychologists who feel that children can be rated as "Highly resistant to suggestion...." etc. seem to have a good argument, whereas those who take the opposite view also seem to have just as valid an argument. Which psychologists are right? Maybe both. It seems that without outside influences, social encounters, or other interference's, children's testimony has the potential to be quite valid. This is under



References: Bernstein, D. A., Roy, E. J., Srull, T. K., Wickens, C. D. (1994) Psychology, 3rd edition Ceci, S & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the Child Witness: A Historical Review and Synthesis, Psychological Bulletin Lefrancois, G. R. (1992). Psychology, 2nd edition. Wadsworth Publishing Company Luus, C. A. E., Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1995). Child eyewitnesses: Seeing is believing Rovee-Collier, C. et al. (1993). Infants Eyewitness Testimony: Effects of Postevent Information on a Prior Memory Representaion, Memory and Cognition,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    However, there are those who disagree with my position and challenge it. A summary of the opposing position is as follows……..…

    • 1904 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In chapter seven, we read about the use of hearsay in the courtroom. What is conspiracy? Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to commit an illegal act (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 179). Most people now days would rather pay someone to commit the crime for them, so that it won’t come back on them, but that doesn’t work. What is hearsay? Hearsay is the second-hand testimony; reports by one person about what another person said (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 180). It states that Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay: “Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” The Rule 801(c) elements of hearsay are thus: 1. a statement, which can be verbal, written, or assertive conduct; 2. Made by an out-of-court declarant; 3. Offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 180). A declarant is a person who makes a statement, either in or out of court (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 180). The co-conspirator rule is the Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) (2) (E) provides that statements made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy are not hearsay. The justification of this rule is that parties in a conspiracy are essentially partners, and an admission by one partner is fairly attributable to the other partners (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 185). It is also stated that most courts have held that statements by co-conspirators are not “testimonial,” and thus are not subject to the Confrontation Clause’s requirement that the defendant have an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the person who made the statement (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 185).…

    • 625 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In a controversial subject such as this one, the reasons for both sides of the argument are…

    • 429 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mr Selsdon

    • 565 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Explain your answer, using Sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own knowledge of the issues related to this controversy.…

    • 565 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It is both subject to the biases of the one who presents it as it is subject to…

    • 778 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In conclusion, I feel there is validity to all three views. Some I side with more than others, but in total they have all shaped…

    • 319 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Either/or thinking-no; Avoiding the issue-no; Overgeneralizing-yes; Oversimplifying-no; Double standard-no; Shifting the blame-no; Shifting the burden of proof-no; Irrational appeal-no…

    • 509 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    1. Adjudicatory Hearing – The Criminal Justice Today textbook defines the term adjudicatory hearing as “the fact-finding process by which the juvenile court determines whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations in a petition” (Schmalleger 510). These types of trials are designated for juveniles, which are similar in nature to adult trials, with notable exceptions. Similarities derive from the fact that the due process rights of children and adults are essentially the same. Essentially, it is a trial process in which a court determines whether or not the allegations contained in a petition are supported by evidence. It is also known as the legal process for resolving some legal dispute and a hearing may be held by a court…

    • 2064 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    This paper reflects on the question of if a child of 10 years or less can act morally wrong or commit morally virtuous acts. Children in today's society are nearly forced to be older than their actual age and thus must increase in maturity and morally comparatively to children of as little as three decades ago. The argument of agreement will be proved by examples of needing a two person income family with a comparative of a child in a single parent versus both parent environment. Although it is a "grievous moral wrong to harm" (Waller, 2008, p. 32) children under the age of ten, the evil in society today will be proved with examples to show children who are harmed are able to commit not only morally virtuous acts but can and will commit morally wrong decisions.…

    • 3255 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    I like the ruling is far because children do not always completely understand the consequences of their actions. Sentencing a child without parole is taking their freedom away. They need to pay for their actions but sentencing them like that is wrong because they need help and not time in jail. Putting the children in jail will not help the problem instead they should be place in a special program to help them understand what they did is wrong and how to deal with it. Another aspect to consider is why did they commit the act? Was it because they were abused or someone made them? No matter how horrible the act the child commit, they still are children and need help.In the case of Alabama I feel like the boys did know what they were doing and…

    • 174 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Am I a Serial Killer?

    • 375 Words
    • 2 Pages

    On the contrary, people might think that these statements are false. But- considering that the…

    • 375 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many people belive thay child soilders are helpless and deserve amisty but in reaity there is no need to give them smist.One reason They do not deserve amisty is because most oof the children volenteer. Someone might wonder why these children would do something so horrible but they do this because they want revenge for their parents/ family's death. Another reason these children should not be given amnesty is because by giving them amnesty that shows commanders that what they are doing is ok and that they do not need to stop. Commander belie this because if these children don’t get in trouble than what the children are doing is not wrong in their eyes and they do not need to stop. Lastly, These children do not deserve to be forgiven for their crimes because these children are committing some of the most brutal and vicious crimes crimes and they walk away without getting in any serious trouble where adults are hating to rot rot in jail or prison for the rest of their live. This happens because people think that these children are innocent but in reality they are responsible some truly horrifying crimes. Now these are only some of the reasons that child soldiers should not be forgiven for their crimes.…

    • 725 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    World is flat

    • 2929 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Question: Do you agree or disagree with this view by a critic, and to what extent? Give reasons and explain your position?…

    • 2929 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Standardized Tests

    • 462 Words
    • 2 Pages

    This article is also from Opposing viewpoints and shows my side of the argument. It talks about how the…

    • 462 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    There are very few states in the United States that extend the right to a jury of their peers for juveniles. Why shouldn’t juveniles be able to stand a trial with a jury of their peers? By law, minors are incapable of representing themselves or making decisions that are based on the current law presiding for the circumstances. Which basically means that juveniles are only children, children that don’t really know what responsibility or breaking the law is yet. Plus a juvenile’s record is private so if they stood in front of a jury then it wouldn’t be so private now would it? Also, juveniles aren’t convicted for the offenses they engage in, they are convicted for the delinquent actions as a minor. The two exceptions, that I myself have found, are either if the crime is serious enough to try the juvenile as an adult or, as said earlier, the state allows juveniles a trial in which a jury is present.…

    • 334 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays