Opinions of legal professionals: Comparing child and adult witnesses’ memory report capabilities

Jens Knutsson , Carl Martin Allwood
{"title":"Opinions of legal professionals: Comparing child and adult witnesses’ memory report capabilities","authors":"Jens Knutsson ,&nbsp;Carl Martin Allwood","doi":"10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The opinions of legal professionals about child and adult witnesses might influence the likelihood that a case is allowed to proceed through the different stages of the legal process. With the aim of knowing the opinions of legal practitioners about child and adult witnesses, 84 legal professionals (Swedish police, prosecutors, and attorneys) were surveyed about their beliefs about child and adult eyewitness memory (and metamemory) abilities. The respondents answered 27 questions relating to nine forensically relevant belief areas in which they compared the memory ability of children (ages 7 to 11 years) and adults. The results showed no differences in assessment among members of different professions and a general trend suggesting that, across the professions, children were believed to be poorer witnesses than adults regarding their memory abilities. Moreover, the professionals’ within-group consensus was very low. These results are discussed in the context of eyewitness research findings and with respect to the implications for both legal and research practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46030,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","volume":"6 2","pages":"Pages 79-89"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.06.001","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S188918611400002X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

The opinions of legal professionals about child and adult witnesses might influence the likelihood that a case is allowed to proceed through the different stages of the legal process. With the aim of knowing the opinions of legal practitioners about child and adult witnesses, 84 legal professionals (Swedish police, prosecutors, and attorneys) were surveyed about their beliefs about child and adult eyewitness memory (and metamemory) abilities. The respondents answered 27 questions relating to nine forensically relevant belief areas in which they compared the memory ability of children (ages 7 to 11 years) and adults. The results showed no differences in assessment among members of different professions and a general trend suggesting that, across the professions, children were believed to be poorer witnesses than adults regarding their memory abilities. Moreover, the professionals’ within-group consensus was very low. These results are discussed in the context of eyewitness research findings and with respect to the implications for both legal and research practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律专业人士意见:比较儿童和成人证人的记忆报告能力
法律专业人员对儿童和成人证人的意见可能会影响案件获准通过法律程序不同阶段的可能性。为了了解法律从业者对儿童和成人证人的看法,对84名法律专业人员(瑞典警察、检察官和律师)进行了调查,了解他们对儿童和成人证人记忆(和元记忆)能力的看法。受访者回答了27个问题,涉及9个与法医相关的信念领域,他们在这些领域中比较了儿童(7至11岁)和成年人的记忆能力。结果显示,不同职业的成员在评估上没有差异,总体趋势表明,在所有职业中,儿童被认为在记忆能力方面比成年人更差。此外,专业人员的群体内共识非常低。这些结果在目击者研究结果的背景下进行了讨论,并就法律和研究实践的影响进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
10
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, the official journal of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense [Spanish Society of Forensic Psychology] and the Asociación Iberoamericana de Justicia Terapéutica [Latin-American Association of Therapeutic Jurisprudence], publishes empirical articles and meta-analytic reviews of topics dealing with psychology and law (e.g., legal decision making, eyewitness). The journal is aimed at researchers, academics and professionals in Psychology, Law, Social Work, Forensic Sciences, Educators and, in general, people related with Social Sciences and the Law.
期刊最新文献
Reality Monitoring: una revisión meta-analítica para la práctica forense Psychosocial Prevention Programs against Radicalization and Extremism: A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Evaluations Attitudes towards School Violence Questionnaire, Revised Version: CAHV-28 Longitudinal Patterns of Antisocial Behaviors in Early Adolescence: A Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis Which Tactics of Sexual Violence Predict Leaving the Relationship? The Role of Dependence towards Partner
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1