Open-Ended Or Closed-Ended Questions

Information is the lifeblood of a criminal investigation. The ability of investigators to obtain useful and accurate information from eyewitnesses of crimes is crucial to effective law enforcement, yet full and accurate recall is difficult to achieve (Stewart, 1985). Such elicitation of complete and accurate recall from people is important in many aspects of life; specifically, eyewitness recall may determine whether a case is solved. Principle advocates of the cognitive interview (Fisher, Geiselman, Holland & MacKinnon,

Beginning the interview and skills/techniques used (empathy, rapport building, listening skills, closed-ended questions and open-ended questions, signs of client engagement)

To reduce some of the problems that have been found with eyewitness memory and testimony, I recommend not mistaking confidence for memory accuracy and using multiple techniques and interviewing models to develop more accurate and consistent information (i.e. using the cognitive enhanced interview model and combined with the Reid model or other models). Also, courts and jurors need to test/check for suggestibility and coercive interview or investigative practices before trials

To minimise the impact of a confident eyewitness in a courtroom, Wixted (2015) suggests that a jury needs to be made aware of any hesitation displayed at the time of initial questioning. It seems that An emphasis should be placed on the early stages of an investigation whilst removing the absolute reliance of courtroom testimonies. By educating a jury about the significance of initial non-identification, it would reduce the likelihood of these testemonies from becoming conclusive

The reviewed article is about a study in which children of two different age groups, and a group of adults were asked general-to-specific questions and misleading questions in an interview to see if the timing of the misleading questions and temperament affected the quality of the witness’s testimony. The researchers hypothesized that the use of misleading questions by interviewer’s causes the witness to unwittingly incorporate false information into their testimony.

The Goal of Forensic interviewing is to “obtain a statement from a child in a developmentally-sensitive, unbiased & truth-seeking manner, that will support accurate & fair decision making in the criminal justice & child-welfare systems (Forensic, p. 1).”

Eyewitness testimony has been used for many centuries and continues to be a part of our criminal justice system. Although, there has been many controversy debates on whether to allow the continuation of these testimonies in court, and allow it to be used as evidence. Eyewitness testimony can either be harmful or useful for an individual. We must fully analysis and see what certain factors (psychological, and age wise) come into the equation before coming up with final conclusions.

Throughout time children have been sole witnesses of crimes either committed to them or in their presence. Leaving forensic interviewers with the burden of withdrawing reliable information in the hopes that these children can remember. Forensic interviewers are not completely aware of children’s capacities and limitations when it comes to communication, and therefore are faced to try to withhold as much information through techniques that will elicit testimony.

This week I compared and contrasted two short one-minute YouTube videos of a pretend doctor implementing closed-ended questions verse open-ended questions. The portrayal shown in the video was comparable to the depiction described in our text –“closed-ended questions that can be answered with one word,” and “ open-ended questions…are broad and require more than one- or two-word answers” (Chang, Decker, Scott, 2018).

Therefore the age of an eyewitness is an important point to note when considering the accuracy of eyewitness identification, especially with the case of very young children providing significantly inferior accuracy than adults if questioned incorrectly. When children are questioned in the same method as adults, misinterpretation and errors can weaken the child’s credibility and the accuracy of their testimony. The fact however remains that eyewitness testimony can be beneficial if caution is exercised when interviewing children so as to not repeat questions, suggest information, or allow for interviewer assumptions and/or bias.

Further statistical evidence to support the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is provided by a study conducted by Loftus and Palmer (1974) on the significance of leading questions in altering memory. This study continues to highlight the importance of post-event memory distortion by way of interrogation (police interview, recollecting the event to friends/family/colleagues), independently seeking information about the case, and/or generally being involved in the ongoing investigation.

Again, while there is no one standard protocol for forensic interviews with children suspected of being victims, there are aspects of interviews which are highly recommended. For example, it has been found that giving interview instructions during the rapport-building phase of a forensic interview tends to lead to more accurate and complete information. Newlin and her associates (2015) point out that such interview instructions as “Only talk about things that really happened” are valuable.

Over the last thirty years, the idea of children as witnesses and the accuracy of their testimony has been widely debated. People are asking themselves if the memories of young children, specifically between the ages of five and ten, can be accurate and in return trusted. So, can children’s memory and testimony be accurate? Prolific amounts of research have been conducted in an attempt to answer this question. Most of the research suggests that unfortunately we can not rely on their accurate recall in testimony. I would have to say I agree with the findings.

In situations like these where children are victims of child abuse, their testimony is the only evidence/witness. The question is how does one know if the child is telling the truth or if she is using her imagination to come up with events that never occurred. In the year of 1994, Pezdek Elsewhere conducted a study about the costs and benefits of weighing children's eyewitness accounts too lightly or too heavily. Suffice it to say here, that weighing children's eyewitness accounts too lightly can result in the perpetuation of child victimization; weighing children's eyewitness accounts too heavily can result in false charges that can permanently destroy families. In light of the dire consequences at both ends of this criterion, it is critical for forensic investigators and the courts to understand the factors that affect children's memory for traumatic events, and to follow procedures that are most likely to maximize the veracity of children's

The child's interview selected has many strengths and limitations. As an objective expert, I will provide the court with scientific evidence of two significant problems with this interview. The two significant problems being identified and addressed today are the effects of a biased interviewer, and misleading and suggestive questioning techniques. Both of these problems are related to this forensic interview. Quality issues of the child's report, as well as how it could be improved will also be explained.