Judicial decision making in timely and delayed prosecutions of child sexual abuse in Canada: A study of honesty and cognitive ability in assessments of credibility.

Abstract

Child sexual abuse is an alarmingly common criminal offense.Whether prosecutions occur shortly after the alleged offense or after a lengthy delay, complainant credibility is often the central issue at trial.In both law and in psychology, credibility is said to be a function of two relatively distinct factors: honesty and cognitive ability.Complainant age informs evaluations of both such that younger children are seen as more honest but less cognitively competent than older children and adults.When a complainant describes a recent event, current age may be used to assess honesty and cognitive ability.However, when a complainant describes an event that occurred in the distant past, we argue that current age is most informative in evaluations of honesty, whereas age at the time of the alleged offense should inform evaluations of cognitive ability.In this research, we analyzed judicial assessments of complainants' credibility in 52 timely (child complainant) and 49 delayed (adult complainant) criminal prosecutions of child sexual abuse.Judicial comments concerning cognitive ability suggest that adults were viewed more positively than children, despite the fact that all complainants were children when the alleged offense occurred.As expected, comments related to honesty suggested that children were seen to be more honest than adults unless they had been exposed to suggestive influences.