Children as Victims, Offenders, Witnesses Flashcards
Martensville babysitting case
R. v. sterling (1995)
- Ms. L noticed a rash on her toddlers, 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 in freezers, ritual murder, dog stabbed to death, nipple bitten off
- Expert witness stated the interviews were too leading
Fabrication
Making false claims
Childrens ability to recall event
able to recall details accurately but had to tell if it is recall vs fabrication
Number of descriptors children provide and type of description
- 4-6 give 1
- 9-10 give 2.5
- older kids more likely to describe interior features
- both easily describe exterior features
- hair most commonly reported
- children have bad conception of age, height and weight
- child more likely to report positive information
Interviewing children
When given an opportunity to use free narrative, children’s accuracy for events are comparable to adults
- draw back is very little details
What to avoid when interviewing children
- leading questions
- approving or disapproving responses
- repeated interviewing close in time with event
- yes/no questions
Waterman et al. 2004 on types of questions
Methods
- 5 to 9 years old
- 10 minute discussion with interviewer
- shown pictures of 2 foods and 2 pets
- then asked yes/no questions and wh- questions
- half of each type were unknown to child
RESULTS
- when answerable preformed similar
- yes or no decrease likely of saying idk
- specifically felt comfortable with idk for how questions
What are the two hypothesis for why children are more suggestible
Social compliance and changes to cognitive system
- most likely a combination of both hypotheses
Social compliance
- Trust and want to cooperate with adult interviewers
- when asked impossible questions 5-7 year olds will answer
- real memory remains intact
Changes to cognitive system
- Children may encode, store, and retrieve memories differently
- Children more likely to misattribute where information came from - take suggestion as fact
Anatomically detailed dolls
- used specifically for abused
- Mixed results
- some believe that could be associated with adverse effect (trigger)
- not much consistency in use or structure
- tested on kids going in for medically necessary physical exams
Statement validity analysis
A protocol to distinguish truthful or false statements made by children
1. structured interview with victim
2. Systematic analysis of verbal content
3. Statement validity checklist
Criterion-based content analysis
Uses criteria to distinguish truthful from false statements made by children
- step 2 of SVA
What is the underlying assumption of CBCA
descriptions of real events differ in quality and content from memories that are fabricated
What are the best criteria for CBCA
- Quantity of details
- subjective experience
- interactions
Criticisms of CBCA
- May be less effective for younger children (less cognitive development and less commanded language)
- Inconsistencies with criteria that is considered truthful
- highly subjective, low inter-rater reliability
Narrative elaboration
Interview procedure whereby children learn to organize their story into relevant categories
- Participants, setting, actions, conversation/affective state
Study of narrative elaboration
- Tested with staged event, 3 conditions; narrative elaborations, cards alone, standard interview
RESULTS - increase accuracy info, no more info but less fabrication
False memory syndrome
False beliefs that one was sexually abused as a child
- no memories of abuse until therapy
The case of Michael Kliman
- 48 year old teacher accused by 2 former students of sexual abuse 20 years prior
- compliant A - claims she recovered memories after being admitted for eating disorder - no record of her coming to this realization (experienced other forms of harassment and stalking)
- Compliant B - recovered memories when questioned by police (a lot) - abused by neighbor, step brother
- Two expert witnesses: no science to suggest memory are lost after sexual abuse (leading questions)
- Kliman found guilty; appealed and no decision; finally acquitted on all counts
Hunter & Andrews (202) sexual abuse memory
- 42 of 74 women with history of childhood sexual abuse report having forgotten the abuse for a time
- these women are more likely to have forgotten semantic facts about their childhood
- subjective forgetting memory - would be able to remember if asked
Lindsay and read (1995) suggested criteria for memory of childhood sexual abuse
- Age at time of abuse
- Techniques used to recover memory - hypnosis, guided imagery heighten suggestibility, encourage fantasy
- Reports across time - does information get more fantastic over time
- Motivation for recall - other psychological distress
- Time elapsed
Sequential line up in children
Increased false positives
Two-judgement theory of identification accuracy
To reach an accurate identification decision, witness conduct both absolute and relative judgements
1. witness scan lineup and search for person who looks most like perp - relative
2. Witness compare the most similar lineup member to their memory of the perp - absolute
Elimination lineup
Newer procedure designed for kids that incorporates both relative and absolute judgement
1. All lineup photos shown to child - select who looks most like the perp
2. Child is asked to compare their memory with the selected photo. must then decide if the phot truly the perp
- decrease false positive, correct rejection increased
Competency Inquiry
Questions posed to witness to determine whether they:
- Can communicate the evidence
- Can understand the difference between the truth and lie
- Feel compelled to tell the truth
- Demonstrate understanding of the meaning of an oath
* Used before 2006 for children under 14 - many weren’t passing because of comprehension issues
What is the current criteria for children to testify in court
- Most children assumed able to testify
- Must understand and respond to questions about past events
- Promise to tell truth
Accommodations for children to testify in court
Testifying can be stressful and traumatic
- Can testify in a different room and be broadcasted into room
- Separated from the rest of the court room by screen
- Support person accompany them
- video taped prior to the proceedings
- Closed court setting
- Publication ban to protect identity
Youth Offenders Act -1984 key changes
- Youth are to be held accountable for their actions; however, not to the full extent that adults are
- The public has the right to be protected from young offenders
- Young offenders have legal rights and freedoms, including those described in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Children have to be at least 12 years of age to be charged with a criminal offence
- For serios offences, like murder, youth could be transferred to adult court as long as they are 14 years or older
- if pleaded guilty, may choose not to prosecute
Youth criminal Justice Act - 2003 key changes
- Less serious and less violent offences should be kept out of the formal court process
- The number extrajudicialcal measures is increased
- There is a greater focus on prevention and reintegration into the community
- Transfers to adult court are removed; instead, youth court judges can impose adult sentences
- The interests and needs of victims are recognized
What is the most common sentence for youth crimes
Probation
Youth crime rates
- Have been decreasing between 2007 to 2017
- Including serious violent crimes and petty crimes
What percent of youth criminals are tried and found guilty
56% in 2013-2014 - probably lower now
What percent of guilty youth are sentenced to custody
15% - decreased over last 10-20 years
Internalizing behaviour
- Feelings of distress that affects you
- can be risk factor
Externalizing Behaviour
Tends to place young people in conflict with others, includes behaviours that are;
- Disruptive
- uncontrolled
- oppositional - breaks rules
- Antisocial - engage in behaviour that will harm others
- Delinquent - disruptive behaviour interfering with laws
- Impulsive
Normal externalizing behaviour in toddlers
Tantrums and noncompliance
Normal externalizing behaviour in preschool
Hitting, kicking, biting
Normal externalizing behaviour in Middle childhood
Relational aggression and overt or covert bullying
Normal externalizing behaviour in Adolescents
Delinquency, substance use, high-risk sexual behaviour
Externalizing behaviour child risk factors
- impulsivity
- early aggression
- hyperactivity when behaviour is disruptive
Externalizing behaviour family risk factors
- Poor child-rearing
- Parent antisocial behaviour
- Low SES
- neglect and abuse
Externalizing behaviour social risk factors
- peer rejection
- associating with deviant peers
Externalizing behavior neighborhood and societal risk factors
- Neighborhood violence
- access to weapons
- poverty
- portrayal of violence in the media
Oppositional defiant disorder
Must engage in at least 4 of the following frequently (under 5 most days, above 5 once per week);
- Losing temper
- easily annoyed or touchy
- angry and resentful
- argues with adults/authority figures
- refuses to comply with requests
- deliberately annoys others
- blames others for own mistakes or behaviour
- spiteful or vindictive
What percentage of children have oppositional defiant disorder
3.6%
What are the characteristics of oppositional defiant disorder
- Angry/irritable mood
- argumentative/ defiant behaviour
- vindictiveness
Conduct disorder
More serios antisocial behaviours that can impact individuals, families and communities
Characterized by;
- Aggression to people and animals
- Deceitfulness or theft
- Property destruction
- Serious violation of rules
What percent of children have conduct disorder
2%
Childhood onset of conduct disorders
- Individuals tend to exhibit more stability in their conduct issues (type will change though)
- Less common (3-5%)
- more likely to experience other issues (cognitive and developmental)
- Quality of conduct problems will change
Adolescent onset of conduct disorder
- Individuals tend to exhibit less stability in their conduct issues
- More common
- Offenses are less aggressive
- May still experience negative outcomes
Conduct problems - life course persistent
LCP start high, decrease but not fully
Conduct problems - Adolescent onset
start low and increase during adolescence
Conduct problems - childhood limited
start high and decrease to similar as normal individual
Conduct problems - low
start low and remain stable - most people
Biological Theories of antisocial behaviour
- At least some genetic component (especially in pervasive antisocial behaviours)
- youth with conduct disorder have slower heart rates - takes more to get excited, looking to increase it
- Issues with prefrontal cortex which is responsible for inhibition, working memory and executive functions involving reward
Social Information Processing Theory
A cognitive theory of antisocial behaviour
- explains how children perceive, interpret and respond to people
1. Encoding
2. Interpretation
3. Clarification
4. Response construction
5. Response decision
6. Behavior enactment
What kind of responses do situations elicit
- Competent - problem-solving, involving an authority figure (limited with children with conduct disorders)
- Aggressive - physical reaction, verbal aggression
- Inept - emotional reactions, ignoring the issue
Proactive responses in social information processing theory
- Issues with response construction and response decision
- struggle to come up with alternative responses
- underlying problem solving issues
- high impulsivity
Reactive responses in social information processing theory
- Issues with encoding, interpretation, clarification
- Considers few social cues and misinterprets situation
- defensive
Social learning theory
Human behavior can emerge from observing others in a social environment - reinforcement
- Children whose parents have engaged in criminal offending are at higher risk for criminal behaviour
- Highly aggressive children often see aggressive behaviour in home or media
Social learning theory doll experiement
- One group of children say an adult be aggressive towards doll the others saw the adult be gentle with the doll
- Some saw rewarded and some saw punished for behavior
- Children more likely who saw aggression and reward to copy behaviour
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 gain
- Relatively stable over time, most children do experience a reduction as they development
- Appears to be a genetic component
- More aggressive, early onset of issues with law
- Sever issues of harming others
How is someone with callus emotional traits sensitivity to negative emotional stimuli
Not as sensitive to negative emotional stimuli
How is someone with callus emotional traits sensitivity to punishment
Less sensitive to punishment - prevents them from learning when they are doing something wrong
How is someone with callus emotional traits expectations to aggression
Expect positive outcomes from aggressive behaviours
