Judging the credibility of historic child sexual abuse complainants: How judges describe their decisions.

Abstract

Criminal prosecutions of child sexual abuse alleged to have occurred in the distant past raise myriad challenges. One significant challenge involves assessing the credibility of complain-ants. In the present study, 51 bench trials involving 87 complainants were coded into categories related to complainants ’ memory for the offense, as well as credibility of the complainant, reliability of the evidence, and judicial inferences. A total of 4,827 judicial comments were identified and categorized. Judges were more likely to describe the allega-tions specifically than generally; however, they were sensitive to the predictably impover-ished nature of memory after such a long delay. Consistent with psychological evidence, there were more judicial comments about inconsistencies in acquit cases than in convict cases and more comments about corroboration in convict than in acquit cases, although neither inconsistencies nor corroboration were strongly associated with verdict. Of some concern was the apparent and considerable judicial interest in complainants ’ behavior and emotions around the time of the alleged abuse and around the time of disclosure.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.