The research on allowing children to testify in court is pretty extensive and everyone involved in the legal and psychological realm of better understanding if children should be allowed to testify in court should read, analyze and apply that knowledge to their role. They should apply this knowledge base to the procedures they use in their role, such as better questioning techniques in the investigation stage (Cashmore & Bussey, 1996).
There are certain aspects that could use more empirical based studies conducted to further understand the whole picture of the positives and negatives to this. Research should be further done on not only how every safeguard technique (CCTV, support dogs etc.) affects the jury’s perceptions of that child’s credibility or a defendant’s guilt/innocence but also which technique is most desired by the children who do utilize them. Using interviews and surveys could be a cost effective way to study questions about a child’s experience with the support technique they received use of during their testimony. Analyses can compare and contrast the results reported and determine if a support dog is warranted as a better or more desired technique to create less stress then a comfort item for example. Research should
…show more content…
Cases that surround children competency, judge’s determinations on the safeguard techniques of the children, and/or finding outcomes of cases that did allow children to testify versus those which did not and what the difference between them was. By having a central study, or database in which both judges, lawmakers, lawyers and many more can go to have a complete picture of how the legal world has been applying the laws and procedures to the idea of allowing children to testify in court could be