Children's testimony and their perceptions of stress in and out of the courtroom

Saywitz, Karen J.; Nathanson, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/0145-2134(93)90083-h

Cited by 109 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Las estrategias utilizadas van desde el uso de preguntas complejas, múltiples, negativas, subordinadas y/o con cláusulas finales interrogativas también llamadas preguntas coletilla (Greenstock & Pipe, 1996;Saywitz & Nathanson, 1993) hasta preguntas sugestivas (Bruck, Ceci, & Hembrooke, 2002;Zajac, Gross, & Hayne, 2003) o entrevistas dirigidas (Lamb et al, 1996). La excelente revisión realizada por Sas (2002) para el Departamento de Justicia de Canadá recoge los aspectos principales que afectan a la capacidad del menor para testificar en tribunal.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Jueces hablando con niños: terminología legal utilizada en la toma de declaración de menores

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen: El propósito de este trabajo fue analizar el lenguaje legal utilizado por los magistrados en la toma de declaración a menores en tribunal. A pesar de la existencia de normativas nacionales e internacionales acerca de la necesidad de adaptar el lenguaje a la edad y el nivel de desarrollo de los niños y niñas que declaran en tribunal, existen pocos estudios que tengan por objetivo confirmar si esa adaptación es real. El análisis de la toma de declaración a 33 menores entre los 8 y los 18 años reveló que los magistrados utilizan un lenguaje legal complejo cuando se dirigen al menor, identificándose 48 términos técnicos. Algunos de ellos son semejantes a los encontrados en otros estudios realizados en países con modelos de justicia diferentes y en lengua inglesa (tribunal, testimonio o testigo), pero otros representan conceptos muy específicos y de difícil comprensión para un menor (suspensión provisional del proceso o secreto del sumario). La presencia de terminología legal en el discurso y las preguntas que los magistrados dirigen a los menores varía considerablemente entre ellos. El propio contexto discursivo en el que surgen los términos técnicos identificados es complejo. Abstract:The purpose of this study was to analyze the legal language used by judges when taking statements from children at court. Despite the existence of national and international regulations on the need to adapt the language to children's age and level of development, there are few studies that aim to confirm whether this adaptation is real. The analysis of 33 statement takings from children between 8 and 18 years old revealed that judges use a complex legal language when speaking to a child. Forty-eight legal terms were identified. Some of them are similar to those found in other studies carried out in Englishspeaking countries and with different models of justice (court, testimony or witness). Other terms represent very specific concepts that are difficult to understand for a minor, like provisional suspension of the procedure or confidentiality of judicial inquiries. The presence of legal terminology in the discourse and inquiries that judges use with minors varies considerably among them. The discursive context where these legal terms appear is also complex.Palabras clave: terminología legal, jueces, menores, toma de declaración, tribunal.

show abstract

Section: Introductionunclassified

Jueces hablando con niños: terminología legal utilizada en la toma de declaración de menores

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Critically, the study found that responses such as "I don't know" and "I can't remember" may indicate a failure to comprehend the question, rather than a lack of knowledge or ability to recall events. Such a failure might easily occur in the unusual surroundings of the courtroom and when the language usage is entirely unfamiliar to the child (Saywitz and Nathanson 1993). The list of features common to courtroom language, including complex structures (e.g.…”

Section: The Adversarial Packagementioning

confidence: 99%

The Nordic Model of Handling Children’s Testimonies

Myklebust

2017

Collaborating Against Child Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In some respects, the answer is yes. A number of studies have shown that the ability to provide their testimony by alternate means reduces children's stress of testifying compared to giving evidence directly in court (e.g., Cashmore, 1992;Davies, 1999;Davies & Noon, 1991;Davies et al, 1995;Goodman Batterman-Faunce, Orcutt, Thomas, Shapiro, & Sachsenmaier, 1998;Landstrom & Granhag, 2010;Murray, 1995;Nathanson & Saywitz, 2003;Saywitz & Nathanson, 1993). In an observational study of 93 trials, for example, Davies et al (1995) showed that children's ratings of their stress levels were lower for children being interviewed on tape than for those who were examined directly by prosecution lawyers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The findings of laboratory-based studies provide similar evidence for the benefits of testifying via alternative means. Researchers have found that children who testified in court had higher self ratings of anxiety compared to the children testifying via CCTV (Goodman et al, 1998) or in a different room (Nathanson & Saywitz, 2003;Saywitz & Nathanson, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: the Effect of Truncated Testimony on Juror Decision‐making

Anderson

Gross

Sonne

et al. 2016

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many countries around the world have modified their legislation to allow child complainants of abuse to present their evidence-in-chief via pre-recorded videotape, or through closedcircuit-television (CCTV), rather than through live testimony, which has been shown to be stressful for children. With this modification, many countries also allow for childrens' videotaped evidence to be truncated for relevance or admissibility purposes. In the two experiments, we examined whether truncating testimony influenced how mock jurors rated the credibility of a 6-year-old child complainant when her testimony contained the primary core allegation only, or when the testimony was presented with either one or two additionalbut less plausible-allegations. We also examined how mock jurors rated the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Contrary to what we predicted, we found that participants believed the child's core allegation, regardless of whether or not it was presented with additional less plausible allegations. Moreover, jurors who read the transcripts containing multiple allegations of abuse were more likely to find the defendant guilty of the core allegation than were jurors who read the core allegation only. These findings suggest that the truncation of testimony may affect the outcome of a trial; however, more research is needed on the effects of truncated testimony on juror decision-making as we continue to try to make the criminal justice system as fair as possible for all of those involved.iii

show abstract

Children's testimony and their perceptions of stress in and out of the courtroom

Cited by 109 publications

References 7 publications

Jueces hablando con niños: terminología legal utilizada en la toma de declaración de menores

Jueces hablando con niños: terminología legal utilizada en la toma de declaración de menores

The Nordic Model of Handling Children’s Testimonies

Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: the Effect of Truncated Testimony on Juror Decision‐making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About