NCJ Number
137655
Journal
Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume: 7 Issue: 2 Dated: (June (1992) Pages: 277-288
Date Published
1992
Length
12 pages
Annotation
Two articles argue for and against the videotaping of child interviews.
Abstract
Increasingly, the manner in which children are interviewed is considered the primary cause of false accusations. One proposal that has been advanced to address the influence of the interviewer on the child's statements is the videotaping of child interviews. Proponents argue that, among other potential benefits, videotaping ensures accountability for the interview process. In San Diego County, interviews conducted by licensed clinical social workers are conducted in a playroom with toys. The interviews are videotaped, with the child's knowledge, from behind a one-way mirror. When the interview is completed, the original tape is kept at the hospital as part of the child's medical record. A copy of the tape is given to law enforcement to be included in the investigative packet. A positive assessment of this interviewing process answers the criticisms that videotaping provides another piece of evidence to be attacked by the defense, that a child's review of the videotaped interview prior to trial suggests coaching, that the courtroom use of an isolated interview is misleading, that the videotaping of only children's interviews implies they are less credible witnesses than adults, and that it is unwise to preserve bad interviews on videotape. In contrast to the positive assessment of San Diego County's videotaping of child interviews, another article argues that the routine videotaping of investigative interviews with suspected child victims does not promote an accurate determination of guilt, is not in the best interests of the child, is counterproductive to prosecution, and is unnecessary.