Uncertainty and Misconceptions About Child Sexual Abuse: Implications for the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

Recent amendments to the uniform evidence legislation in Australia mean that it will be possible for prosecutors to call expert opinion evidence to bolster the credibility of child complainants in child sexual assault (CSA) trials. Yet little is known about the extent of the common beliefs and misconceptions in the Australian population about child sexual abuse and the degree of discord between their beliefs and what the research literature shows. A survey investigated the knowledge and misconceptions of 659 laypeople about children's memory, reliability, suggestibility and children's responses to sexual abuse, and explored demographic differences in child sexual abuse misconceptions in an Australian jury-eligible sample. Reported here are the first published results on the perceptions and beliefs of Australian citizens regarding factors that influence the outcomes in CSA cases. An important contribution was significant findings of extensive uncertainty regarding these topics. Results showed that gender, age and educational attainment were associated with the endorsement of misconceptions about CSA cases. Topics that expert evidence can address to remedy these knowledge deficits were identified.

Enhancing the credibility of complainants in child sexual assault trials: The effect of expert evidence and judicial directions

“…Two hundred and thirty participants (response rate ¼39%) logged into a secure website and completed a demographic questionnaire and CSA knowledge pre-test (the CSA Misconceptions Questionnaire; Cossins et al, 2009). Two weeks later they were invited to participate in a follow-up study lasting approximately one hour.…”

“…For instance, they are uncertain whether children can provide reliable accounts of sexual abuse, make false claims of sexual abuse, and whether children are credible witnesses in court (Cossins et al, 2009;Morison & Greene, 1992;Quas et al, 2005). The majority of participants in these studies did not know that sexual abuse rarely results in corroborating evidence (such as injury to the child) that can be detected by a medical examination (Johnson, 2004).…”

“…The majority of participants in these studies did not know that sexual abuse rarely results in corroborating evidence (such as injury to the child) that can be detected by a medical examination (Johnson, 2004). A recent survey of Australian jury-eligible citizens revealed that a substantial proportion of participants lacked knowledge about the reality of children's experiences of sexual abuse, indicating that such information is outside the experience and common knowledge of laypeople (Cossins et al, 2009). Jurors may disregard the testimony of a child complainant who does not conform to their stereotyped expectations about CSA cases and victims.…”

“…In New South Wales (NSW), the largest jurisdiction in Australia in terms of population, in the higher courts, the most frequently charged offence of all finalized cases during 2007 was sexual assault, of which sexual offences against children constituted two-thirds (65.9%) (NSW BOCSAR, 2008). Despite this increase and frequent media reports on the topic in the last decade (Cossins, Goodman-Delahunty, & O'Brien, 2009), CSA remains one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute in Australia (Fitzgerald, 2006). Studies conducted in the USA show that conviction rates are consistently low, with most convictions resulting from guilty pleas (Cross, Walsh, Simone, & Jones, 2003;Motivans & Kyckelhahn, 2007).…”

“…Moreover, this system relies on laypeople, who are inexperienced in matters of CSA, to serve as jury members. Their task includes the difficult job of assessing witness credibility and veracity, which is likely to be affected by the variety of misconceptions about children, offenders, and child sexual abuse they bring to the jury room (Calvert & Munsie-Benson, 1999;Cossins et al, 2009;Morison & Greene, 1992;Quas, Thompson, & Clarke-Stewart, 2005).…”