NCJ Number
111796
Journal
Utah Law Review Volume: 1988 Issue: 3 Pages: 443-448
Date Published
1988
Length
6 pages
Annotation
Recent statutory changes aimed at protecting child witnesses in Utah include a provision that permits the visual recording of the testimony of a child victim and/or witness of sexual or physical abuse.
Abstract
Several myths have been used to justify this reform. While the statute purportedly aims to protect the child from the rigors of trial, its actual purpose is to make it easier for prosecuting agencies to obtain convictions. While it is argued that the change reduces the trauma of the criminal justice process for the child, in reality, testifying before a jury provides a therapeutic means of purging the horror of the offense from the child's psyche. The third myth employed as justification for videotaping is that children will not lie and cannot be led into making false assertions. The proliferation of these myths has resulted in unnecessary safeguards for the child witness that undercut the historic presumption of innocence of the defendant. When the child is kept out of the courtroom, jurors begin with the impression that the defendant is guilty. In addition, the use of videotaped testimony prevents effective cross-examination, obscures the demeanor of the witness, and impedes the right of confrontation. 13 footnotes.