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