当儿童作为证人,受害者或被告参与审判时,陪审员必须决定他们是否可信,以及如何权衡他们的证词。因此,尽管许多心理学研究都集中在儿童目击者证词的实际准确性上,但考虑其感知的准确性也很重要。研究表明,陪审员在决定儿童证词时考虑了许多因素。在本研究论文中,我们回顾了陪审员对旁观者证人,涉嫌虐待儿童受害者/证人和少年被告的证词的认识。
陪审员可以确定儿童证人是准确还是不准确,说实话或说谎?一些研究表明,尽管成年人可以发现儿童(尤其是年长的儿童)的谎言,但成年人并不是很擅长辨别儿童的实际准确性或从事实中发现的谎言,但略大于机会准确性。与成人目击者文献的发现一致,问题的一部分是,陪审员似乎过度使用了儿童信心对判断孩子准确性的可疑标记,这是误导性的,因为孩子的信心与孩子的准确性之间的关系并不总是很强。需要进行更多的研究以确保在儿童对个人意义上的事件做出错误或虚假证词的情况下,这些结果保持真实,这对于大多数关于该主题的研究并非如此。即便如此,现有的研究仍基于这样的结论,即成年人无法很好地检测到儿童的实际准确性水平。因此,越来越多的研究集中在确定影响陪审员对儿童目击者证词的看法的实际准确性以外的其他因素。
对旁观者证人的看法
盖尔·古德曼(Gail Goodman)和她的同事们对陪审员对儿童证人的看法进行了首次研究。他们评估了陪审员对车辆杀人案和谋杀案的背景下给出的旁观者证词的反应。尽管所有陪审员都阅读了同样的证词,但有些人被告知主要起诉证人是成年人,而另一些人被告知证人是孩子。陪审员认为儿童证人比成人证人不太可信,这种效果并未受到陪审团的审议。这项研究提供了第一个证据,表明陪审员和陪审团对儿童提供准确证词的能力持怀疑态度,这大概是因为陪审员怀疑幼儿的认知能力可以准确编码和检索事件的细节。即便如此,证人年龄并没有直接影响陪审员对被告的内gui的评级。取而代之的是,陪审员仅在证人成年时才基于证人证词。当证人还是个孩子时,陪审员对其他案件证据进行了更大的考虑。因此,尽管陪审员经常报告说他们在做出决定时考虑证实证据,但是当证据的主要来源是儿童证词时,尤其如此。实际上,后来的研究表明,当陪审员的证词被其他可信的儿童证人证实时,他们的证人会更积极地看待个人证人。
对涉嫌儿童虐待受害者的看法
在首次研究陪审员对儿童旁观者证人的看法之后,研究很快转向了陪审员对儿童受害者证人的看法 - 特别是所谓的儿童性虐待受害者。这一转变反映了1980年代对儿童性虐待的社会关注,以及通常秘密进行性虐待的儿童性虐待,几乎没有证据表明,这是对起诉的儿童受害者证词的关键。这项研究表明,陪审员的决定受到许多因素的影响。例如,陪审员通常发现儿童性虐待受害者比大一点的孩子年轻13岁。为什么?陪审员认为,年幼的孩子比大孩子(伤害儿童旁观者证人的信誉)的认知能力较低,这实际上是为了使儿童性虐待受害者的优势。也就是说,与年龄较大的孩子相比,年幼的孩子被认为是性幼稚的,因此在认知上能够制造实际没有发生的性虐待指控。年幼的孩子也被认为更诚实,因此不太可能撒谎。实际上,出于同样的原因,陪审员认为智障(即精神弱智)的青少年性虐待受害者比平均智力的孩子更可信。实际上,智力残疾儿童的性行为比非无效的儿童更频繁,但检察官可能会犹豫起诉此类案件,担心陪审员不会相信残疾人证人。
A number of other factors also influence jurors’ perceptions of child sexual abuse victims, including victim and defendant factors such as gender and race, case factors such as whether the child’s disclosure of abuse was portrayed as delayed or repressed, and juror individual difference factors such as gender and attitudes. For example, one of the most robust findings in this field is that compared with men jurors, women are on average more likely to convict defendants and to perceive children as credible witnesses. This may be driven by the fact that compared with men, women empathize more with child victims and have somewhat more pro-child and anti-child-abuse attitudes.
最近,注意力已经开始转向成年人对据称是其他形式虐待儿童的受害者的儿童的反应。For example, studies in which adults consider brief vignettes of maltreatment situations indicate that neglect is perceived to be more severe when a victim is younger rather than older, perhaps reflecting people’s awareness that compared with older children, younger children are less able to care for themselves and may experience more adverse consequences from neglect. In contrast, people perceive psychological abuse to be more severe when the victim is older rather than younger, perhaps reflecting the belief that older children are more likely to experience damage to their self-concept. Perceptions of physical abuse severity are not influenced by age, suggesting that people disapprove of physically abusing children of any age. Although the possibility has not yet been tested within a mock trial paradigm, jurors may be similarly influenced by these variables in trials involving these forms of child maltreatment.
有时,允许心理学家作为审判中的专家证人作证,以了解陪审员不直接理解的心理相关性问题。学者们不同意有关儿童实际目击者能力的专家心理证词的条件。调查表明,陪审团的某些部分知识渊博,了解儿童的实际记忆,暗示性和披露性虐待的趋势,但其他陪审员却没有。大多数陪审员对受虐待和未受虐待的儿童表现出的临床症状,法医访谈技术的了解不足,这些技术增加了虚假指控的风险与促进虐待的真实披露的临床症状,以及儿童是否容易容易置换和内化虐待记忆。(妇女和受教育程度更高的陪审员比其他陪审员更了解此类问题。)一些人认为,专家证词将是反对陪审员无知的宝贵工具,而其他人则担心专家证词会增加对儿童能力的无情持怀疑态度。
玛格丽特·科弗拉(Margaret Kovera)和她的同事的研究表明,专家证词可用于教育陪审员至少一个特定问题:根据儿童证人的非语言提示和容貌的危害。也就是说,陪审员期望被虐待的儿童在证明他们的性受害时会在情感上感到不安,当没有达到这种期望时,陪审员怀疑虐待指控的真实性。专家证词可以通知陪审员,大多数儿童受害者在出庭之前已经重复了很多次故事,有些人不再表现出情感上心。这种证词可以减少陪审员对儿童性虐待受害者证人的负面偏见,这是由于对情感与准确性之间关系的错误假设而导致的。
无论出现如何,在法庭上作证对于某些儿童证人来说都是一种创伤经历。为了保护儿童免受这种潜在的创伤,美国最高法院宣布在某些条件下允许宪法允许的儿童使用创新技术来证明其免受被告的侵害。例如,儿童证人不用在被告面前的一个公开法庭作证,而是可以通过闭路电视(CCTV)传递证词,而在法院其他地方证明了法院的其他地方。或儿童证人可以在法庭上以屏幕阻塞的被告的看法在法庭上作证。这种住宿如何影响陪审员对儿童证词的看法?Although defense attorneys fear that jurors will infer a defendant’s guilt from the use of accommodations and give undue weight to testimony presented under such circumstances, ironically, mock trial research suggests that jurors perceive child witnesses to be less credible when testimony is presented via CCTV than when children testify live in court. This may result from accommodated children appearing less stressed than children who testify in full view of the court, which may signal the need for psychological expert testimony for the reasons discussed previously.
对儿童被告的看法
最近的研究已经开始考虑陪审员对被指控犯罪的儿童的看法。这变得越来越重要,因为越来越多的青少年在成人刑事法院而不是少年或家庭法院进行了审判,他们的案件是由陪审员而不是少年法院法官决定的。不幸的是,研究表明,在成人刑事法院尝试少年是固有的偏见。例如,陪审员推断,成人刑事法院曾在成年刑事法院审判的少年被定罪,这种推论增加了定罪的可能性。实际上,大多数重罪少年罪犯(即,最有可能在成人刑事法院接受审判的少年)从未被捕。Jurors’ judgments are also influenced by the severity of the crime (jurors perceive juveniles as more competent and render more severe sentences when the crime and its outcome are more severe) and by inferences regarding a juvenile’s intent to commit a crime, understanding of wrongfulness, and recidivism potential. Many psychologists are concerned that jurors might not understand juveniles’ actual capabilities in these regards and that jurors are insensitive to the fact that juveniles are less cognitively competent and mature than adults. Research on this issue is mixed. Although some jurors appear to set lower standards of proof for juveniles tried in adult criminal court than for adults, jurors are less likely to convict younger juveniles than older juveniles, perhaps because they believe that younger juveniles are less competent to stand trial. Under some conditions, however, jurors perceive younger and older juveniles to be equally competent. Meanwhile, other research has identified juror and case characteristics that influence jurors’ perceptions of child and adolescent offenders. For example, as in child sexual abuse cases, women jurors appear to have more positive perceptions of juvenile offenders than men do. Also, situational trial factors can influence trial outcomes: Attorneys’ pleas for jurors to empathize with a juvenile offender lead jurors to be more sensitive to mitigating factors, perceive the juvenile to be less responsible for the crime, and render more lenient judgments relative to jurors who are not asked to empathize.
未来的研究
未来的研究将更好地理解影响陪审员对法庭中儿童看法的因素,重要的是,这些观念影响陪审员的判决的过程。心理学家希望这些知识可用于告知一项法律政策,以确保为参与试验的所有当事方司法公正。
参考:
- Bottons,B.L.,Golding,J.M.,Stevenson,M.C.,Wiley,T.R.A。,&Yozwiak,J.A。(2007)。审查影响陪审员在儿童性虐待案件中决定的因素。在M. P. Toglia,S。J. Read,D。F. Ross和R. C. L. Lindsay(编辑)中,《目击者心理学手册:卷》。1.事件的内存(第509-543页)。新泽西州马瓦(Mahwah):劳伦斯·埃尔鲍姆(Lawrence Erlbaum)。
- Ghetti,S。和Redlich,A。D.(2001)。对青年犯罪的反应:对问责制和能力的看法。行为科学与法律,19,33-52。
- 古德曼(G.当孩子站出来时:陪审员对儿童目击者证词的看法。法律与人类行为,11,27-40。
- Kovera,M。B.,Gresham,A。W.,Borgida,E.,Gray,E。,&Regan,P.C。(1997)。专家证词是否为陪审员的决策提供了信息?社会认知分析。应用心理学杂志,82,178-191。