Credible Witnesses

Blimey! That is huge!

This is a sort of bookmark - I will be back in a while.

bookmark-waiting for some of the legal eagles to appear.

Me too. This is quite the loaded question.

Don't we need a definition for "children" before it's possible to proceed?

E.g.
Age of majority?

Doesn't work for me. I'd have a hard time being convinced that a 17 year old that commited a premeditated murder shouldn't be tried as an adult.

raggy- Welcome to A2K!

1- It depends on the age of the child, his maturity, and the circumstances of the case. I don't think that one can make a blanket statement about this issue.

2- Again, it depends upon the nature of the crime, and whether the child understood what he was doing.

Yep, both questions depend (in part) on the age of the child.

1. Young children have proven to be credible witnesses at some times, but the children generally need to (a) know the difference between fantasy and reality (note that there have been a number of very young child witnesses whose memories may have been manipulated) and (b) understand that there will be consequences if they lie. Plus, of course, the child must be able to communicate, either through speech or sign language. A crying or babbling baby obviously isn't going to be a credible witnesss.

I believe the youngest credible witness in New York state was four years old. I'm trying to find a cite for that. Here is a cite for a case in the Philippines wherein a witness of four years of age had her testimony accepted (warning: it's a rape case, and not pleasant reading): http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_132364_2001.html

As for 2. That depends upon a number of things, not the least of which is the child's age, but it also depends upon the severity of the crime. Here's a cite re a child of 11 who was tried as an adult: http://members.aol.com/digasa/stats33.htm

PS The age of majority is generally considered to be 18 years of age, at least in the United States.

This pair were tried as adults.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_335075.html

I still not sure they were tried as adults because it was accepted that they knew precisely what they were up to or because a greater punishment can be handed down to adults.

BTW, I understood the age of majority issue, hence my remark about 17 year olds.

Their subjective credibility - ie according to juries - seems to be pretty low though - perhaps partly because they are often testifying to their own abuse, which is scary, and because defence attorneys can easily confuse them - but this is a problem generally in fields where there can usually be little corroborating evidence, by the nature of the alleged offence/s.

Frankly, I tremble for a kid whenever a case actually goes to trial, because nothing can prepare them for the true awfulness of trial - and because their developmental stage makes them even less able than adults to understand the unlikeliness of conviction, the presumption of innocence and the fact that a failure to convict does not mean that everyone in the court room and outside it now thinks them a liar. Sigh.