Explain the specific areas to be avoided when questioning a child as a sex crime victim.

Assignment Brief

The Syndrome and Psychopathology

Assignment Details:

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 for interviewing child sexual abuse victims. The Commander of the Sex Crimes Unit would like to 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.

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

Sample Answer

The Syndrome and Psychopathology: Interviewing Child Sexual Abuse Victims

Introduction

Interviewing children suspected to be victims of sexual abuse is an extremely sensitive process that demands expertise, empathy, and a structured approach to avoid causing further trauma or compromising the integrity of the case. As an investigator for Child Protective Services (CPS), it is crucial to highlight that improper interview techniques, especially when conducted by untrained police officers, can result in false allegations, misleading statements, or even dismissed charges due to tainted evidence. This report addresses common interviewing errors made by police officers and provides recommendations for best practices, particularly the need for expert interviewers trained in forensic child interviewing.

1. The Use of Suggestive Questions

Suggestive questions are those that imply a certain answer or lead a child toward specific responses, such as:

• "Did he touch you there?"

• "Did your uncle do something bad to you?"

Children are highly impressionable and often want to please adults or avoid conflict. Suggestive questions can distort memory, especially when the child has experienced trauma, making them more vulnerable to confusion. Psychological research shows that young children may interpret suggestion as fact, especially if the question is repeated or framed with authority.

In cases of sexual abuse, misleading suggestion can result in a false narrative, undermining both the child’s credibility and the prosecution’s case. Thus, open-ended questions such as "Can you tell me what happened?" are preferred, allowing the child to share their story in their own words.

2. The Implication of Confirmation by Others

Another harmful tactic is implying confirmation by others. Examples include:

• "Your teacher said you were acting strange, was that because of what he did to you?"

• "Your sister already told us what happened, can you confirm it?"

This tactic can lead children to assume they’re supposed to give a certain answer. It erodes the child’s independent recall, making their testimony unreliable. Children may feel pressured to agree with others’ accounts, especially if they perceive them as trusted or authoritative.

Research in developmental psychology emphasizes that children are especially sensitive to social pressure, and introducing external confirmations can bias their responses. Interviews must encourage original, spontaneous narratives, free from external influence.

3. The Use of Positive and Negative Consequences

The use of rewards or threats during questioning is a serious error. Statements such as:

• "If you tell me the truth, I’ll buy you a toy."

• "If you don’t tell me what happened, we can’t help your mummy."

These techniques undermine the voluntary nature of the disclosure and can be seen as coercive. Positive reinforcement may prompt a child to fabricate details just to receive praise or gifts, while negative consequences may make the child anxious or more likely to comply dishonestly to escape punishment.

Such methods are ethically and legally problematic, and they compromise the admissibility of testimony in court. Professional forensic interviewers are trained to avoid shaping responses through emotional leverage or bribery.

4. Repetitious Questioning

Repeatedly asking the same question can signal to the child that their original answer was incorrect or unaccepted. For example:

• "Are you sure he didn’t touch you?"

• "Tell me again what happened, did he really do that?"

This can lead to response shifting, where the child begins to change their answers to align with what they believe the interviewer wants to hear. Additionally, repetition can cause confusion, especially in younger children who may struggle with consistent recall or become emotionally fatigued.

A qualified interviewer will know how to build rapport, use developmentally appropriate language, and avoid undermining the child’s confidence. A single, well-structured interview is preferable to multiple sessions that may introduce contradictions or stress.

5. Inviting Speculation

Children should never be asked to guess or speculate about events, as their imagination can cloud factual recall. Questions like:

• "What do you think he was trying to do?"

• "If he had done something, what would it be?"

These blur the lines between reality and assumption, especially for children with vivid imaginations. In a legal context, speculative statements carry no evidentiary value and may be interpreted as inconsistent or fabricated testimony.

Interviewers should focus on facts the child experienced directly, avoiding hypothetical or abstract language. Professional training helps interviewers to discern between credible memories and confusion, something untrained officers may overlook.

Continued...