Download
1 / 18
180 likes | 260 Views
7th iIIRG Annual Conference 2014. Confrontations with children during forensic investigations : interviewers’ strategies and children’s responses Carmit Katz and Yaela Naor Tel Aviv University, Israel . Background .
E N D
7th iIIRG Annual Conference 2014 Confrontations with children during forensic investigations: interviewers’ strategies and children’s responses Carmit Katz and YaelaNaor Tel Aviv University, Israel
Background • The Israeli legislature initiated The Law of Evidence Revision Protection of Children, which was passed by the Israel Knesset in 1955. This law prioritizes children’s well-being over the basic rights of the suspects, and it was initiated to ensure that children would not be further traumatized in the forensic process. • To overcome this shortcoming, a built-in phase of "cross-examination" was entered into the NICHD Protocol.
The current study The aims of the current study are to explore: • How often child forensic interviewers in Israel confront children? • How child forensic interviewers in Israel confront children? • How children respond to these confrontations? Analyses were referred to the children`s characteristics (age, gender), to abuse characteristics (type, severity, occurrence and suspect) and whether the child disclosed the abuse before the forensic investigation (prior disclosure)
Sample characteristics The criterions for inclusions in the current study were: • The children provided allegations with respect to the alleged abuse • Hebrew was the children`s mother tongue language • No developmental disabilities of the children were reported • External evidence (e.g., suspect admission; medical evidence)
Sample characteristics • 102 boys and 122 girls • Aged 5 to 14 (M=9.97, SD=2.47) • 107 cases of sexual abuse and 117 cases of physical abuse • Among the physical abuse cases, all of the children were interviewed following suspected multiple incidents and all of the suspects were parents.
Sample characteristics • Among the sexual abuse cases, 49.5% were single incidents (n=53) and 50.5% were multiple incidents (n=54). • Concerning the suspect familiarity within the sexual abuse cases: 8 cases of parental figures 18 of other family members 40 of suspects outside of the family 41 strangers
Procedure • All the investigative interviews were conducted by 55 well-trained investigative interviewers, all shared similar professional background • The NICHD Protocol
Coding Confrontation kind: • Confrontation with suspect • Confrontation with other • Confrontation with children`s testimony
Coding Confrontation severity: • Severity 1: hypothetical confrontation, for example: “if the suspect/someone else/ will say that it did not happen to you what will you say?” • Severity 2: confrontation with aspect of external evidence, for example: “if the suspect/someone else will say that you were bleeding because of something else, what will you say?” • Severity 3: introduction of interviewer disbelief, for example: “it is very strange, did he really do that or are you inventing something?”
Coding Children`s responses to the confrontations: • Insist: when the child insists the abuse had happened, for example: “but I told that it happened to me so why are you saying that?”, “of course it happened to me even the neighbor saw me bleeding and crying” • Confusion: when the child displays uncertainty of his testimony following the confrontation. For example: “well if he will say that I would not know what to do”
Coding Children`s responses to the confrontations: • Minimize: when the child is trying to minimize the abusive incidents following the confrontation. For example: “it really wasn’t a big deal it did not even hurt” • Recant: when the child recants the allegation following the testimony. For example: “everything that I said was a lie” • Fear: when the child displays fear following the confrontation. For example: “I am afraid what will you do to me if he will say that?”
Results: How often children were referred with confrontations
Results: confrontation with suspect Children`s insist: exploration of children`s characteristics Age and gender did not effect this response
Results: confrontation with suspect Children`s insist: exploration of abuse characteristics The variables that were found as significant:
Conclusions • The vast majority of the children insisted on their testimonies, regardless the confrontation type, severity, their age and gender. • The overall context of the interviews might had allowed the children to insist on their testimonies (future studies)
