Effective Interviewing Techniques for Child Sexual Abuse Victims- Ensuring Trauma-Informed and Supportive Interviews

Effective Interviewing Techniques for Child Sexual Abuse Victims- Ensuring Trauma-Informed and Supportive Interviews

It is always riveting that when looking at police interviews of the victims of child sex crimes, the children refused to accept that they had been violated in police presence despite there being sufficient proof, such as video evidence and photographs, to prove otherwise. It was clear that children were trying to avoid answering specific questions or the police were interviewing in a particular pattern that was disconcerting to them, to warrant withdrawal and holding back of information. With this, it is also clear that these children provided significantly more information neutral to the abusive acts than the sexual information. As such, following the police interviews, the children are avoidant. With this in mind, it suffices to say that children who have been sexually abused are highly resistant to reporting the abuse in police interviews. It implies that professionals interacting with child victims of sexual abuse are needed to conduct the interviews because, with the police, the victims can be misled unintentionally by the police, resulting in false or inaccurate complaint information.

The Use of Suggestive Questioning in Child Sex Crimes

Foremost, police use of suggestive questioning in child sex crimes by the police is one of the primary reasons they should not be responsible for the interviews of these victims. Without a doubt, when the police interview the minors in a certain way, the interview will be so that police are intrigued in having the testimony of the minors come out in a way that they want, which makes this unreliable. Suggestive questioning entails a scenario whereby the interviewer introduces new information concerning the topic at hand into the interview with unnecessary questions. For instance, “Did he fondle your bottom?” would inevitably be a clear suggestive question during an interview on sexual abuse of minors, especially if the child failed to mention being touched inappropriately (Wood & Garven, 2000).

Also, numerous studies have postulated that interviewer suggestiveness can extensively curtail the accuracy of the children. For some children, a mildly suggestive question could be the only one needed to blow off the interview in the wrong direction (Wood & Garven, 2000). Suggestiveness has a negative ramification on minors less than four years old, further compromising the accuracy.

Nonetheless, there is a need to have children who are victims of sexual abuse be interviewed by qualified persons to testify as expert witnesses in subsequent criminal trials. Subsequently, having these professionals as the interviewers of the children of sexual abuse hints that they can be used in courts as expert witnesses. Thus, they play a vital role in the jurisprudence system in the US. In this case, courts largely depend on their testimony, especially in criminal cases, to provide their opinions to the judges and jurors (Paul & Narang, 2017).  In such cases, the expert has to portray to judge a picture of efficacious knowledge concerning the issue to become an expert. Without their help, judges and jurors would not be equipped with the technical skills to differentiate malpractice from maloccurrence.

Besides, having the children interviewed by the professionals ensures that the line of questioning is not suggestive and biased in a way that leads the victim to pick on cues that could lead to false allegations and possible dismissal of the case. In this case, having a professional interviewer would ensure that children provide as much accurate information as possible.

 Repetitious Questioning and Inviting Speculation

 When sexual abuse on children is made known to the police, it is clear that because a police officer is not entirely in the know concerning the details of the events, it is likely that the line of questioning would trickle down to those that the minor cannot answer.  In this case, the victim could start providing information that they are unsure of because they feel compelled to (Wysman, 2012).  Given that the minor in the interview is asked to answer the same questions again for the second or third time, they could be a pointer that they did not show more effort during the first interview. In this case, the police officer could make it known to the minor that the information provided would be inadequate to put the suspect behind bars. Unless they provided more information, the suspect could go free. At this point, inaccurate information is achieved, and false allegations come out as a consequence.

Crucially, the repetition of questions and emphasis on particular areas could impair how and what a child victim shares because, according to Wysman (2012), “…questioning individuals in such a way may lead to changes in testimony that undermine the accuracy of information recalled and the credibility of witnesses in the courtroom.” The police’s repeated interviewing techniques are problematic, including asking pointed questions, which apply pressure on the minors to motivate them to “work harder” in their recall.

The Implications Surrounding the Involvement of Others in Child Sex Crimes

Without a doubt, child sex victims could be influenced by other people. In this case, they are accosted by situations such as forgetfulness of the actual events due to trauma. As such, the police or relatives of the victim may make the child provide false evidence to strengthen their case. Sometimes, these minors are forced to provide lies or positively reinforced with promises of candy and money to motivate them to say what the police want to incriminate the suspect. Also, sometimes, the victim’s family is paid off in secret by the offending party, and the victim is made to provide evidence that is weak and self-contradictory.

When this occurs, there are negative reverberations to the reliability of the statements provided by the minor. “…Historically, in most states, evidence from children was routinely excluded on the ground that they are not competent witnesses because, among other things, the line between fantasy and reality is blurry in children” (Brainerd & Reina, 2012). This implies that when there is an inconsistency in the evidence brought forward by the minor, their testimony is most likely to be dismissed.

Application of Positive and Negative Consequences in Interviewing Strategy

Doubtless, the usage of positive and negative consequences bolsters a victim of child sexual abuse in remembering what happened. However, this is essential in reducing the level of accuracy of the child depending on the strength of positive or negative consequences. According to Newlin et al. (2020), pieces of evidence methods are highly ineffective in cases that involve child sexual abuse and may, therefore, provide incorrect information.

Also, the application of the consequences could have false allegations during the interrogation. Due to the depressing situation, the children are most likely to be overwhelmed and give inadequate information. Psychologically and emotionally, the child can be affected and also result in the provision of insufficient information. The feeling of betrayal could also shut down the child and curtail the interviewer’s progress.

Conclusion

In conclusion, several areas should be avoided when interviewing a minor who is a victim of sexual abuse: the use of suggestive questions, the implication of confirmation by other people, inviting speculation, repetitious questioning, and the use of positive and negative consequences. Also, from the discussion above, interviews should be conducted by very skilled persons in this field to guarantee that the collected information is accurate, reliable, and sufficient enough to be used in the courts of law.

References

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2012). Reliability of children’s testimony in the era of developmental reversals. Developmental Review, 32(3), 224-267.

Fendt-Newlin, M., Jagannathan, A., & Webber, M. (2020). Cultural adaptation framework of social interventions in mental health: Evidence-based case studies from low-and middle-income countries. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 66(1), 41-48.

Paul, S. R., & Narang, S. K. (2017). Expert witness participation in civil and criminal proceedings. Pediatrics, 139(3).

Wood, J., & Garven, S. (2000). How Sexual Abuse Interviews Go Astray: Implications for Prosecutors, Police, and Child Protection Services [Ebook] (p. 1). https://bit.ly/3CRkPFB

Wysman, L. (2012). The Effects of Repeated Questioning and Negative Feedback on Eyewitness Consistency after a Cognitive Interview (CI).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Scenario: You are an investigator for Child Protective Services in your community. One of the most difficult aspects of interviewing is the interview of a suspected victim of child sexual abuse. Often, the first interviewers are detectives or investigators from the police department with little or no training in interviewing child sexual abuse victims. The Commander of the Sex Crimes Unit would like you to identify errors in interviewing by police investigators when questioning child sex crime victims about the circumstances during the alleged offense(s). The psychopathology of the suspect and the victim are very important, but the victim can be misled unintentionally by police, resulting in false or inaccurate complaint information.

Effective Interviewing Techniques for Child Sexual Abuse Victims- Ensuring Trauma-Informed and Supportive Interviews

The Commander of the Sex Crimes Unit would like you to outline and explain the specific areas to be avoided when questioning a child as a sex crime victim.

Specifically, he is concerned with the following:

The use of suggestive questions
The implication of confirmation by other people
Use of positive and negative consequences
Repetitious questioning
Inviting speculation
In a 3–5-page paper, address the specific concerns, and explain why it is preferable to have the child interviewed by a person with the qualifications to potentially testify as an expert witness in subsequent criminal trials.