Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Should child witnesses testify by TV?
Message-ID: <8281@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 14:06:20 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8281
Posted: Tue Feb 12 14:06:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 01:49:36 EST
References: <164@sdcc12.UUCP> <125@tove.UUCP>
Organization: USAMC ALMSA
Lines: 83

> 
> My second point is more of an emotional one.  If you have an alleged
> child abuse case, where the child says he was abused, and the adult
> says he didn't abuse, with no other corroborating information,
> obviously one of the two parties is lying.  But which one?  My personal
> gut feeling is that, with no other evidence, it is more likely the
> adult.  I'm not trying to say that children wouldn't lie in a situation
> like this, but the adult has a lot to gain by lying (not going to
> jail), and the child doesn't have much to gain (except in the way of
> emotional benefits).  And I personally believe that self-preservation
> would support someone who is lying a lot longer under the inquisition
> required in a police investigation and court case than would purely
> emotional benefits gotten by a child.  Not extremely logical, but I
> said it was more of an emotional point.
> -- 
> 
> Bruce Israel
> 
> University of Maryland, Computer Science
> {rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet)    israel@Maryland (Arpanet)

Up until a few years ago, I would have agreed with this. Now, I think
I would disagree. I think the balance has shifted to a point where it
is EQUALLY likely that the child or the adult is the liar. The reason
for this is publicity and the active efforts in schools and other areas
of childrens' lives to make them aware of the possibility of sexual
abuse. 

Before this was as common as it is now, up until a few years ago, it
would be an amazing and unusual thing for a child to even conceive of
the possibility of sexual abuse, unless it actually happened to him/her
(and then, he/she wouldn't know how to describe it or understand what
happened). Now, though, children have seen TV programs on the subject,
have it discussed with them by their teachers and/or parents (in some 
cases), and generally are exposed to the knowledge of the subject.

Therefore, they have learned that it exists, and it is not unlikely that
some children (admittedly most probably a miniscule fraction) would
have realized that this is something that they can use as a weapon
or tool to punish or attack some adult, by using other adults to do
the work for them. Admittedly, a child is less likely to be able to
maintain a consistent false story in the face of critical investigation,
but we must also realize that the severity of such a "critical"
or skeptical interrogation is what is being reduced by such laws as
those allowing remote testimony by TV.

It is probably an unresolveable dilemma. We can only defend the
accused, and preserve his/her rights, by allowing the witnesses to
or accusers to be objectively but critically examined in a rigorous
manner. At the same time, most children cannot provide testimony if
they are examined in such a seemingly-hostile environment, and will not
have the inner resources and convictions to stand up righteously
under this scrutiny. Thus, even if their accusations are true, they
cannot present them in a manner acceptable as evidence in a court of law.

Probably the only solution is technological. Some form of non-chemical
(electronic brain stimulation or the like) truth-verification would
make the problem moot. We would have to change the fundamental constitutional
protection against self-incrimination; then, simply placing the helmets
on the heads of the accuser and defendent will tell us who is speaking
the truth. Or, if that change in rights is not acceptable, merely
verifying the truth of the accusation by checking the truthfulness of the
accuser might be enough. (One problem with this that comes to mind --
if the accuser really BELIEVES he/she is speaking the truth, that will
probably register as "true". I would think a small child, having told the
same story over and over as true, might sincerely come to believe it is true,
even if it is not.)

Another solution would be the capability to examine the past -- a
"time-viewer" sort of device. Such a thing, if it allowed only
observation of past events, would seem to be more feasible than the
standard "time machine", simply because it does not allow the traditional
paradoxes to develop. With such a device, any past event could be examined,
and the truth or falsehood of an accusation easily verified. Of course, 
the existence of such a device destroys any hope for any form of privacy.

Until technology solves these problems for us, I fear they will remain
with us and no attempts at compromises or "work-arounds" will really
work.

Will Martin

USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin     or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA