wa263@sdcc12.UUCP (bookmark) (02/07/85)
<- bug snack The California state assembly has just passed a law to permit children under fourteen to testify in sexual-abuse cases (perhaps in other cases, too) by closed-circuit television. The child will be in a room separate from the courtroom, and only a picture of his face (and the sound of his voice) will be transmitted to the court. Even the jury will see only the television image. The child will not be able to see the judge, the jury, the accused, or the courtroom audience. The child may, on occasion, be able to see one of the questioning attorneys--but not always. Advocates of this law and trial-procedure say that it will reduce the psychological traumas the child witness may suffer from his exposure to the courtroom. They contend that the experience of sitting in a court- room under the gaze of many people whilst relating testimony will damage the child's mental health. Also, some advocates have stated that they believe a child witness will be more willing to give testimony under these circumstances, away from the intimidating qualities of the courtroom ``scene.'' Opponents, however, complain that this procedure will endanger the courtroom search for truth. They say that the judge and jury need to observe a witness's entire demeanour: fidgeting, hand-wringing, foot- kicking, and all; not just his face, to form a proper opinion as to the content of his testimony. Furthermore, they argue, the isolation of the witness from the courtroom will encourage false testimony by removing the moral pressure provided by the defendant's presence and the court's scrutiny. Also, the child witness might be ``coached'' or intimidated during his testimony by persons off-camera without the knowledge of the jury. The defendant's right to be confronted with the witnesses against him at his trial is an ancient one. The physical appearance of the witnesses is important for several reasons: their identities may be clearly established; their testimony may be taken in front of the court, away from intimidation by parties to the case; and they may be subjected to moral pressures to encourage truthfulness-- the presence of the defendant, the solemnity of the courtroom, the august countenance of the judge, the scrutiny of the jury. Appearance by television destroys all of these good effects. However, with child witnesses, there does exist a fear that a public, courtroom appearance will prevent them from giving proper testimony--due to their own fearful reaction to being so examined. Is this ``TV testimony'' law really proper? Is it possible to guarantee every defendant a fair trial when the witnesses against him are to be cloistered away in a TV studio, out of either sight or hearing of the court, except through the narrow eye of the video system? I don't think so. I think this law is bad. No one has actually demonstrated any psychological harm to any child resulting from his appearance in a courtroom to testify. I suspect that going to the dentist is far more terrifying for most youngsters. As for children being intimidated by the courtroom, this would appear to be a good thing. After they've calmed down a little (which they will--courtrooms aren't dungeons, after all) kids will be more likely to speak the truth if they're fearful of being found out by the magnificent machinery of the law. Is there anyone out there to defend this ``video witness'' law? bookmark
israel@tove.UUCP (Bruce Israel) (02/08/85)
In article <164@sdcc12.UUCP> wa263@sdcc12.UUCP (bookmark) writes: > > The California state assembly has just passed a law to permit >children under fourteen to testify in sexual-abuse cases (perhaps in >other cases, too) by closed-circuit television. [...] > The child will not be able to see >the judge, the jury, the accused, or the courtroom audience. The child >may, on occasion, be able to see one of the questioning attorneys--but >not always. > > Advocates of this law and trial-procedure say that it will reduce >the psychological traumas the child witness may suffer from his exposure >to the courtroom. [...] Also, some advocates have stated that they >believe a child witness will be more willing to give testimony under >these circumstances, away from the intimidating qualities of the courtroom >``scene.'' In my opinion, the most important reason is left out here; avoiding the intimidation of the children by the accused. Remember that young children for the most part do not have as much personal power as adults do, and its very easy for an adult (especially one who is or was in a position of power over the child, as is true im most of the child molestation cases) to intimidate the child into not incriminating the adult. After all, think about how hard it is to get the children to discuss the matter in the first place. > Opponents, however, complain that this procedure will endanger >the courtroom search for truth. They say that the judge and jury need >to observe a witness's entire demeanour: > [...] Furthermore, they argue, the isolation of the >witness from the courtroom will encourage false testimony by removing the >moral pressure provided by the defendant's presence and the court's >scrutiny. Also, the child witness might be ``coached'' or intimidated >during his testimony by persons off-camera without the knowledge of the >jury. Well, these objections don't really object to the basic idea of TV testimony, but only of the proposed application. The camera can be moved back so that the entire child's entire body is visible, or maybe there could be two screens, one with the entire body, and one with just a facial close-up. Coaching can be easily prevented by the stationing of a court bailiff in the room (something I would have thought would be almost automatic anyway, in a courtroom situation. The question of encouraging false testimony is, I admit, a difficult one, but I think that a child, even in this situation, would realize that he is under scrutiny. And I don't think that the lack of scrutiny encourages lying as much as the confrontation with the accused encourages lying in the opposite direction. > The defendant's right to be confronted with the witnesses >against him at his trial is an ancient one. The physical appearance >of the witnesses is important for several reasons: their identities >may be clearly established; their testimony may be taken in front of >the court, away from intimidation by parties to the case; and they may be >subjected to moral pressures to encourage truthfulness-- the presence >of the defendant, the solemnity of the courtroom, the august countenance >of the judge, the scrutiny of the jury. Appearance by television >destroys all of these good effects. I disagree. Identity verification would have been done before this; and besides, the child can always be brought back into the courtroom if necessary. Intimidation is NOT removed by the presence of the court, just lessened a little. I am reminded of the case recently (in L.A., maybe?) where the children were afraid to testify, and the prosecution actually brought in Mr. T. to be there and tell the kids that no one would hurt them if they told the truth. I think that this was a very creative solution to the problem, but we don't have dozens of Mr. T.'s floating around, ready to be on call at a moments notice for child molestation cases. > However, with child witnesses, there does exist a fear >that a public, courtroom appearance will prevent them from giving >proper testimony--due to their own fearful reaction to being so examined. > > Is this ``TV testimony'' law really proper? Is it possible to >guarantee every defendant a fair trial when the witnesses against him are >to be cloistered away in a TV studio, out of either sight or hearing of >the court, except through the narrow eye of the video system? Well, remember that we aren't talking about putting all witnesses on camera, just children. If the law was to put all trial witnesses in separate rooms testifying by TV, then I agree with you. But I do think that special allowances need to be made for children, for the reasons stated above. > I don't think so. I think this law is bad. No one has actually >demonstrated any psychological harm to any child resulting from his >appearance in a courtroom to testify. [...] Well, I can't address the psychological harm issue, since I have seen no data on the problem, and doubt that its a widespread problem. > Is there anyone out there to defend this ``video witness'' law? Yes, obviously, as I have done above. I just have two more points; According to your paraphrasing of the law, they did specify SEXUAL ABUSE cases for the application of this idea. You didn't address this case as opposed to any other type of cases (auto accident, robbery etc.) and it is an extremely important difference. In all criminal cases, the defendant is accused of committing the crimes, BUT ONLY IN SEXUAL ABUSE CASES does the child feel guilty for the occurrence of the crime even though he/she did not cause it! And that guilt is manipulated and used by perpetrators who say things like "Don't tell mommy, or she won't love you any more." 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)
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/11/85)
Perhaps it would be best if the court were closed to all but the prosecution, defense, judge, and jury and everyone else could watch on video. Your average courtroom with spectators tends to be a little to "alive" for my tastes. -Ron
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (02/12/85)
> > 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
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (02/14/85)
In article <125@tove.UUCP> israel@tove.UUCP (Bruce israel) writes: >I am reminded of the case recently (in >L.A., maybe?) where the children were afraid to testify, and the >prosecution actually brought in Mr. T. to be there and tell the kids >that no one would hurt them if they told the truth. I think that this >was a very creative solution to the problem, but we don't have dozens >of Mr. T.'s floating around, ready to be on call at a moments notice >for child molestation cases. Your memory is badly incorrect. The case you are talking about is the notorious McMartin case. The facts are that Mr. T *offered* to be there to comfort the children; he was TURNED DOWN by the judge because she felt it would lend too much of a Hollywood atmosphere to the hearing. Child psychologists are quite capable of handling this sort of issue, and we have lots (too many?) of them. >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. Unfortunately, this is not true. It is very easy to confuse a child into telling lies and sticking to them strongly. The aforementioned McMartin case, oddly enough, provides the most persuasive proof of this. There is no question whatsoever that the abuse occurred -- the physical evidence in sodomized children is said to be visible to the layman. But the children, along with their testimony against the defendants, have also told tales of coast-to-coast airplane trips (in one day), of satanic rituals around the altar of the local Episcopal church, and numerous other outlandish tales. Some may turn out to be true, but it is impossible for all of them to be true. A child has a very impressionable mind. A well-meaning but clumsy questioner, worried by the McMartin case, can hear abuse in a child's description of innocent behavior (such as drying off after a swim), and can then in their excitement leave the child convinced that a very bad thing happened ("Now, Johnny, I want you to promise me that you will *never never* go near Mr. Smith again. We'll let the police take care of him.") Also, let's remember that there have already been several cases where the accusing child recanted after destroying the reputation of one or more people. In one case, it was motivated by a desire to "get" a certain teacher. I hope I don't sound like I don't believe in child abuse. The McMartin case happened in my home town, and it is impossible to deny what happened. But I am convinced that there are several people on trial right now in LA (not in the McMartin case) who are being falsely accused. If I were accused by a child I knew, I would want to be able to face him or her and try to communicate what damage he was doing to me in their confusion. -- Geoff Kuenning Unix Consultant ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (02/19/85)
In article <338@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >If I were accused by a >child I knew, I would want to be able to face him or her and try to >communicate what damage he was doing to me in their confusion. And I would want a court-appointed qualified professional to represent your interests. Someone who was not emotionally involved in the outcome who could ensure that the child was protected while the truth was being brought to light. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (02/19/85)
In article <440@spp2.UUCP> jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) writes: >In article <338@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >>If I were accused by a >>child I knew, I would want to be able to face him or her and try to >>communicate what damage he was doing to me in their confusion. > >And I would want a court-appointed qualified professional to represent >your interests. Someone who was not emotionally involved in the >outcome who could ensure that the child was protected while the truth >was being brought to light. I think you misunderstand me here. I am talking about a child I have known and loved for several years (I tend to personalize these things) and the very real possibility of a false accusation encouraged by a misguided counselor or grandparent. One of the comforts I have in worrying about such things is the knowledge that I would have the opportunity to explain to the child, in detail and in my own words, exactly what would happen to me if the truth was *not* brought to light. Please excuse me if I don't think a "court-appointed professional" is as capable as I am in communicating with a child I have known for years. And please remember that, if you are falsely convicted of child molesting, you are facing a sentence of from 5 to 20 years in a prison where child molesters are on the bottom of the totem pole, suffering hatred, beatings, and rape. Not a pleasant prospect for a person who never actually committed a crime. Especially in the light of the rabbit-ears revelation this morning, I remain convinced that some, if not all, of the McMartin defendants are guilty. And I would not like the idea of *my* child having to face those people again in court. (That would hold, incidentally, even if my child were 25 and the criminal were a simple mugger. Facing people who have hurt you is tough.) Nevertheless, let us remember that false accusations are made. It is not very pleasant to see a friend's child in the McMartin case. But it is also not pleasant to see the friend falsely put into the worst jail conditions possible, just because of overblown hysteria from McMartin. We must walk a ridiculously fine line here to strike a balance, but walk it we must. -- Geoff Kuenning Unix Consultant ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff