Eyewitness Memory of Children with Intellectual Disabilities

Recent years have seen increasing amounts of research done regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony and ways to verify whether or not an eyewitness’ memory can be considered true.  Particular attention has been given to children.  Historically the testimony of children has been suspect because of their age; this has caused concern that when the only witness to a crime is a child, that evidence might useless.  Lucy A. Henry and Gislie H. Gudjonsson (2003) took this a step further by studying the reliability of children with intellectual disabilities (ID).  They lamented the lack of research done on the value of witnesses with ID and especially the neglect of children with ID who suffer from the two-fold legal liability of young age and intellectual disability.  Henry and Gudjonsson (2003) argued that these children can be reliable enough to serve as witnesses, given some considerations for their circumstances.  Their intent was to give some hope of legal protection to a group of people who are normally disregarded.

The study of recall in children with ID was conducted in the same way that other kinds of memory research have been done in the past.  Henry and Gudjonsson (2003) compared children with ID to those of the same chronological age (CA) to determine suggestibility, the amount of details retained, and to determine ratios of accurate to inaccurate information provided in recall.  The results suggested that children with ID showed virtually identical performance to the CA-matched control children with open-ended recall and non-leading, specific questions; but they demonstrated high susceptibility to suggestion (Henry, 2003).  This finding argued that responsible interviewing can make a child with ID as reliable a witness as one without.  Children with ID also showed the same ratio of accurate to inaccurate information as the control group, though they provided less information in general (Henry, 2003).  Henry and Gudjonsson concluded that any situation in which a child’s testimony is valid, a child with ID can be just as credible.

Validity of eyewitness memory is a fascinating concern and an important function of psychological research.  Course material discussing and demonstrating the way memory works, and sometimes does not work, indicates that a memory should never be taken for granted or trusted implicitly.  The fallibility of memory is an even more serious concern in a legal setting where eyewitness testimony can be the difference between a guilty and not-guilty verdict.  It is critical to know how to verify the reliability of an eyewitness’ testimony to maintain an impartial legal system.  And it is important to ensure the law protects children and people with ID as thoroughly as it does others.  This is a cause best championed by experts who understand exactly what challenges are faced by people with ID.  The role of psychologists in court proceedings is fascinating to me.  Verifying eyewitness veracity is an important job that should increase in demand as the science of analyzing memory continues to progress.

Children in particular need protection in a courtroom from leading questions and testimony-corrupting suggestion.  Children or adults with ID are in a still-more perilous position.  If nobody will stand by their value as witnesses, they could end up neglected by the legal system as has been the case for years past.  Conditions have improved as time has gone by, but society cannot become complacent to the needs of those who cannot speak for themselves.  Science can only do so much for a person with ID; but understanding how those people can be incorporated as productive and welcome members of society is one of the things it can do.

Reference

Henry, L. A., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). Eyewitness memory, suggestibility, and repeated recall sessions in children with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 481-505. doi:10.1023/a:1025434022699