children as victims offenders, dundundunnn, witness Flashcards
The Martensville Babysitting Case
R. v. Sterling (1995)
Ms. ‘L’ noticed a rash on her toddler, suspected
child abuse of her daycare provider
Several claims made against Linda, Ron, and Travis
Sterling
Children stated:
◦ They had been touched
◦ Confined in cages, forced to drink blood
◦ Whipped, thrown naked into freezers
◦ Ritual murder, dog stabbed to death, nipple bitten off
Expert witness stated that interviews were too
leading
Fabrication
Making false claims
Interviewing Children
When given an opportunity to use free narrative, children’s accuracy for
events are comparable to adults
◦ However, very little information is provided
We want to avoid:
◦ Leading questions
◦ Approving or disapproving responses
◦ Repeated interviewing close in time with event
◦ Yes/No questions?
Waterman et al. (2004)
Children 5 to 9 years old
10-minute discussion with
experimenter
Shown pictures of 2 foods, 2 pets
Yes/No questions – “Did the lady
show you a picture of a banana?”
Wh- questions – “What was the
lady’s name?”
Half of each type were unknown
to children
Why are children more suggestible? (2)
Social compliance
Changes to Cognitive System
social compliance
Trust and want to cooperate with adult interviewers
◦ Is milk bigger than water? Is red heavier than yellow?
Changes to Cognitive System
Children may encode, store, and retrieve memories
differently
◦ Children more likely to misattribute where information
came from
Interviewing Techniques - Anatomically Detailed Dolls
Mixed results
◦ Some believe that could be
associated with adverse effects
◦ Not much consistency in use or
structure
Interviewing Techniques
Statement Validity Analysis (SVA):
a protocol to distinguish truthful or false
statements made by children
Structured Interview with Victim
Systematic analysis of verbal content
Statement Validity Checklist
Criterion-Based Content Analysis (CBCA):
uses criteria to distinguish truthful
from false statements made by children
(comes from systematic analysis of verbal content)
Interviewing Techniques: CBCA
(Underlying Assumption)
descriptions of real events differ in quality and
content from memories that are fabricated
Interviewing Techniques: CBCA
critisism
May be less effective for younger children
◦ Inconsistencies with criteria that is considered ‘truthful’
◦ Highly subjective, low inter-rater reliability
Narrative Elaboration (interview technique)
nterview procedure whereby children learn to
organize their story into relevant categories
‘Does this card remind you to tell
something else?’
Tested with a staged event, 3 conditions
◦ Narrative Elaborations
◦ Cards alone
◦ Standard interview
salem witch trials and kids
children said they saw crazy things but they retracted them when they grew up
kinda lead to children and suggestability idea
are children capable of accurtatly reaclling relevant info
yes
children 4-6 vs 9-10 and recalling people
age 4-6 is only 1 desrciber
age 9-10 uses 2.5 descriptos
hair most popular
older = interior features (nose, eyes, freckles)
both = exterior (hair)
what do childre struggle w when desriibng
height and weight
they dont undertsand that tall is heavy and short is light
only in adolescnce can we ask about weight
if children are given positive and negative information what are they likely to report
the positive info
children with free narrative
can be comparable to adults
what kids are most sucesspitble to leading q
younger kids
when will kids change stories
if the interviews are too close in time
“tell me everything about your day” kids vs adults
kids less detail adults more details
answerable q vs not answerable q and yes/no vs wh q
if answerable its the same
if not answerable then the yes/no is much worse bc the kids feel trapped and they dont wanna idk like they can do in a wh- q
impossible q
5-7 yrs still answer the q
is recall meory still intact if they do social complicance
yes
problem w the doll thing
ppl make their own dolls
it is not standardized
the 3 important parts of the CBCA
interactions (reports of convo between victim and perpetrator)
quantity of details (how many)
subject experience (how were they feelings)
Underlying Assumption of cbca
descriptions of real events differ in quality and
content from memories that are fabricated
Criticisms cbca
May be less effective for younger children
◦ Inconsistencies with criteria that is considered ‘truthful’
◦ Highly subjective, low inter-rater reliability
Interview Techniques
Narrative Elaboration:
interview procedure whereby children learn to
organize their story into relevant categories
‘Does this card remind you to tell
something else?’
Tested with a staged event, 3 conditions
◦ Narrative Elaborations
◦ Cards alone
◦ Standard interview
False Memory Syndrome
false beliefs that one was
sexually abused as a child
◦ Usually, no memories of
abuse until therapy
The Case of Michael
R. v. Kliman (1998)
48-year-old teacher accused by 2 former students of
sexual abuse 20 years prior
Complainant A – claims she recovered memories after
being admitted for eating disorder
Complainant B – recovered memories when
questioned by police
Two expert witnesses – including Dr. Elizabeth Loftus
Kliman found guilty; appealed and no decision; finally
acquitted on all counts
Can traumatic memories be forgotten?
Adults with sexual abuse history report consciously forcing memories from
their minds
Hunter & Andrews (2002) → 42 of 74 women with history of childhood
sexual abuse report having forgotten the abuse for a time
◦ These women more likely to have forgotten semantic facts about their childhoods
Subjective forgetting appears to not interfere with objective memory for events relating to abuse
Can traumatic memories be forgotten?
Lindsay & Read (1995) suggested 5 criteria:
◦ Age at time of abuse
◦ Techniques used to recover memory
◦ Hypnosis and guided imagery heighten suggestibility and
encourage fantasy
◦ Reports across time
◦ Does information get more fantastic over time?
◦ Motivation for recall
◦ Other psychological distress
◦ Time Elapsed
Lineup Procedures and Children
sequential kid vs adult
In adults, sequential lineup has some issues with false-positive responses
◦ Increased false positives have been observed in children
Two-judgement Theory of Identification Accuracy - asking about lineups and absolute vs relative
to reach an accurate identification decision, witnesses conduct both absolute and relative judgements (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1999)
- Witnesses scan lineup and search for person who looks
most like perp - Witnesses compare the most similar lineup member to
their memory of the perp
Elimination Lineup:
newer procedure designed for kids that incorporates
both relative and absolute judgement
1. All lineup photos shown to the child → selects who looks most like the
perp
2. Child is asked to compare their memory with the selected photo. Must
then decide if the photo is truly the perp
Competency Inquiry
old vs present
Competency Inquiry: questions posed to witnesses to determine whether
they:
◦ Can communicate the evidence
◦ General ability to perceive, recall, communicate
◦ Can understand the difference between the truth a lie
◦ Feel compelled to tell the truth
◦ Demonstrate understanding of the meaning of an oath
Now:
◦ Most children assumed able to testify
◦ Must understand and respond to questions about past events
Testifying as a child can be
stressful and traumatic
t or f
t
For serious offences, like murder, youth could be transferred to adult court as
long as they are 14 years or older
t or f
t
Youth Crime Rates
Crimes have
decreased
Probation is the
most common
sentence
15% guilty youth
sentenced to
custody
Most that are
tried, are found
guilty
Externalizing Behavior
Tends to place young people in conflict with others
Disruptive
Undercontrolled
Oppositional
Antisocial
Delinquent
Impulsive
externalize toddlerhood
Tantrums
* Noncompliance
Preschool externalizing
- Hitting
- Kicking
- Biting
Middle Childhood externalizing
- Relational
aggression - Overt or covert
bullying
Adolescents
externalizing
Delinquency
* Substance use
* High-risk sexual
behavior
child factors externalizing
- Impulsivity
- Early Aggression
- Hyperactivity
when behavior is
disruptive
family factors externalzing
Poor child-
rearing
* Parental
antisocial
behavior
* Low SES
* Neglect + Abuse
school factors exteranlizing
peer rejection
* Associating with
deviant peers
Neighbourhood +
Societal Factors externalzing
- Neighbourhood
violence - Access to
weapons - Poverty
- Portrayal of
violence in the
media
when r u best fit for cbca
adult / older = better
what does sequential increase
false positive
sequential absolute or relative
absolute
simultanous absolite or relative
relative
elimiation line up solution for….
kids using more rleative than absolute
BUT also works for adults
what do we do instead of oath
promise
6 ways to help kid in court bc scary / accomodation 1998
- broadcasted from dif room in real time
- screen so child cannot see court
- support person on stand w rthem
- video tapes piror - no longer real testimony now it is evidence
- courtroom closed to media
- publication ban
can anyone ask for the courtttom accomocation or only kids
yes anyone
used to be only sa tho
- parent possible jail
- threatnented by person
how to keep kids out of jail like what instead
educstion
community serivcs
youth crimincal justice act 2003
less erious keep out of court
more extrajudiical measures
prevent and reinitegtration
kids will never be in adult court BUT can still hv big punishment
person and empathy centres
antisocial behv
behv that hurts or harms ppl other than family
serious externalizing
delinquent behv
property disturbance
underage subtances
breaking laws
serious externalzing
impulsive behv
can be not conflict like shopping or eating
talking over ppl
not waiitng ur turn
when is peak externalizing
teen
Oppositional Defiant Disorder
Must engage in at least 4 of the following frequently:
◦ Losing temper
◦ Easily annoyed or touchy
◦ Angry and resentful
◦ Argues with adults/authority figures
Angry/Irritable
Mood
Argumentative
/ Defiant
Behavior
Vindictiveness
◦ Refuses to comply with requests
◦ Deliberately annoys others
◦ Blames others for own mistakes or behavior
◦ Spiteful or vindictive
Conduct Disorder
More serious antisocial behaviors that can impact individuals, families, and
communities
Aggression to
People and
Animals
Deceitfulness
or Theft
Property
Destruction
Serious
Violation of
Rules
Age of Onset
Childhood Onset
Individuals tend to exhibit more
stability in their conduct issues
◦ Less common (3-5% of population)
◦ More likely to experience other issues
◦ Quality of conduct problems will
change
Adolescent Onset
Individuals tend to exhibit less stability
in their conduct issues
◦ More common
◦ Offenses are less aggressive
◦ May still experience negative outcomes
Biological Theories of Antisocial Behavior
Prefontroal coretxt
At least some genetic
component
◦ Especially in pervasive antisocial
behaviors
◦ Youth with conduct disorder
have slower heart rates
Responsible for:
- Inhibition
- Working Memory
- Executive functions
involved in reward
Cognitive Theories of Antisocial Behavior
Social Information Processing Theory
* Explains how children perceive, interpret, and respond to people
1.Encoding
2.Interpretation
3. Clarification
4. Response Construction
5. Response Decision
6. Behavioral Enactment
cogntive theory 3 possible bhev respinsed
Competent → problem-solving, involving an authority figure
Aggressive → physical reactions, verbal aggression
Inept → emotional reactions, ignoring the issue
Social Theories of
Antisocial Behavior
Social Learning Theory: human
behavior can emerge from observing
others in the social environment
◦ Reinforcement can help
Children whose parents have engaged
in criminal offending are at higher risk
for criminal behavior
Callous Unemotional Traits
Stable traits observed in children that consist of low
empathy and guilt and uncaring interpersonal style
◦ Shallow or deficient feelings or emotions
◦ Callous use of others for own’s own gain
Relatively stable over time, however, most children
experience a reduction as they develop
Appears to be a genetic component
does externalizing behv mean a problem
no not always
conduct disorders vs conduct disorder
s=class
no s= the actual disorder
odd emotion vs behv
need behv dont need emotion
odd frequency based on age
under 5 = daily
over 5= weekly
bc of inhibitaion adn development
also it needs it vcause stress or dysfunction
is condct dusorder intentional
yes
has a purpose of harm
around 2% of kids
childhoos onset - stability and severity
stays the same severity but the act itself can chnage
where r kids likely to struggle w conduct disorder
academic struggles, neurcognitve defucuts, congitve development, brain development
lifecourse persistent vs adolescent onset vs childhood limited vs low
(conduct problems)
lcp stays high and low stays low
high at age and low at other age
conduct behviours and problem solving skills
they have bad problem solving skills and bad response and more aggressioin
reactive aggression in the circular diagram
encoding, interorettauon, clarifiation
a respnonse to something else
only focus on social cues
proactive aggression
response construction
response decision
out of the blue
problems w problem solving
violent video game
desenziitze to violence
the hot sauce
reactive vs proactive later on in life
r= earlier onset, anxiety, subtsance usage
p= subtsance delinquency, defensive, violence
father in jail before born vs when older
young/not born less impact vs when older
how much kid have callous
1%-2%
differnce in cognition of callous children (3)
- less sensitive to emotional stimuli (harder to detect) dont rlly understand pain/distress and so they continue to engage in harmful behv
- less sensisitve to punishment, they might smile when getting yelled at, they have their own ideas of what is okay
- more positive outcome expectations in aggressive situations, they think aggression results in someone learning their lesson
