False Memory
Below is an example of a possible scenario in which a child's credibility is questioned in providing a statement about a sexual assault that has happened to her. When it comes to children providing testimonies in court, they are often thought to create false memories about situations which may or may not have occured.
One afternoon, 4-year old Cheryl came home sobbing and reported that Mr. Johnson, a neighbor and long-time friend, had taken down her pants and touched her "private parts." Her mother was shocked. She had always believed Mr. Johnson to be an honest, decent man, which made her wonder if Cheryl's imagination had simply run wild. Yet, Mr. Johnson sometimes seemed a bit peculiar, so her daughter's claim did have a ring of truth.
In cases where young children are the only ones to witness a crime, they may be needed to take the stand and provide a testimony. Depending on the age of the child, they may be susceptible to passing on false information provided to them and actually believe that this was what had actually happened. The retention of false information into memory is called false memory. The younger the child, the more susceptible they are to providing a false memory on the stand. Even if the child is not given false information in preparation for trial, if the defense attorney asks the right kind of leading questions, then this may alter what the child believes is true or not.
In Cheryl's case, her original story about Mr. Johnson is most likely true. Even though young children are imaginative, it is highly unlikely that she would make up a story this graphic about a trusted family friend. According to psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, "misinformation has the potential for invading our memories when we talk to other people, when we are suggestively interrogated or when we read or view media coverage about some event that we may have experienced ourselves" (Loftus; 1997). When asking her daughter about the situation, Cheryl's mother should not ask her specific questions about the situation that may lead to the development of false memories. When asking her, Cheryl's mother should have her describe the situation completely without asking questions such as, "Are you sure it was Mr. Johnson," or, "Could it have been so and so?"
In handling the situation in court, Cheryl's mother must first make sure that the person who originally questions Cheryl is trained in getting testimonies from children so that there is less of a chance of a false memory taking the place of the true ones. According to developmental psychologist John Santrock, "...the reliability of young children's reports has as much to do with the skills and motivation of the interviewer as with any natural limitations on young children's memory" (Santrock, 252; 2010). It would not be smart to have her look at a line up of pictures because if she was originally able to identify the attacker as Mr. Johnson, then she must have been very confident on this because she had told her mother about the situation right after it had happened.
When interviewing Cheryl in court, questions should be used to help Cheryl describe the situation. Under no circumstance should the lawyer provide information to Cheryl of which they believe to be true even though Cheryl may not have said it. According to Santrock, "Young children are capable of recalling much that is relevant about an event." (Santrock, 252; 2010). When the child does recall the event correctly, the interviewer should maintain a neutral tone and avoid any possible misleading questions.
Even though some may believe that calling a child to the stand as a witness may lead to negative results in the long run, sometimes they play a crucial role in convicted criminal. In the conviction of Michael Ward in 1989, a four-year-old girl named Jennifer Royal was one of the leading witnesses. Ward was being charged with shooting and killing several people at the house where Jennifer was playing. She was one who saw the man coming and even survived being shot. She was not the only witness of the incident, but she provided insightful testimony and was able to point out Ward in the courtroom. Using children as witnesses in cases like this may aid in persuading lawmakers creating or amending laws which require more regulations on gun control when they see that it affects children at a very young age.
In Cheryl's case, her original story about Mr. Johnson is most likely true. Even though young children are imaginative, it is highly unlikely that she would make up a story this graphic about a trusted family friend. According to psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, "misinformation has the potential for invading our memories when we talk to other people, when we are suggestively interrogated or when we read or view media coverage about some event that we may have experienced ourselves" (Loftus; 1997). When asking her daughter about the situation, Cheryl's mother should not ask her specific questions about the situation that may lead to the development of false memories. When asking her, Cheryl's mother should have her describe the situation completely without asking questions such as, "Are you sure it was Mr. Johnson," or, "Could it have been so and so?"
In handling the situation in court, Cheryl's mother must first make sure that the person who originally questions Cheryl is trained in getting testimonies from children so that there is less of a chance of a false memory taking the place of the true ones. According to developmental psychologist John Santrock, "...the reliability of young children's reports has as much to do with the skills and motivation of the interviewer as with any natural limitations on young children's memory" (Santrock, 252; 2010). It would not be smart to have her look at a line up of pictures because if she was originally able to identify the attacker as Mr. Johnson, then she must have been very confident on this because she had told her mother about the situation right after it had happened.
When interviewing Cheryl in court, questions should be used to help Cheryl describe the situation. Under no circumstance should the lawyer provide information to Cheryl of which they believe to be true even though Cheryl may not have said it. According to Santrock, "Young children are capable of recalling much that is relevant about an event." (Santrock, 252; 2010). When the child does recall the event correctly, the interviewer should maintain a neutral tone and avoid any possible misleading questions.
Even though some may believe that calling a child to the stand as a witness may lead to negative results in the long run, sometimes they play a crucial role in convicted criminal. In the conviction of Michael Ward in 1989, a four-year-old girl named Jennifer Royal was one of the leading witnesses. Ward was being charged with shooting and killing several people at the house where Jennifer was playing. She was one who saw the man coming and even survived being shot. She was not the only witness of the incident, but she provided insightful testimony and was able to point out Ward in the courtroom. Using children as witnesses in cases like this may aid in persuading lawmakers creating or amending laws which require more regulations on gun control when they see that it affects children at a very young age.