You are an investigator for Child Protective Services in your community. One of the most difficult aspects of interviewing is the interview of a suspected victim of child sexual abuse. Often, the first interviewers are detectives or investigators from the police department with little or no training for interviewing child sexual abuse victims. The Commander of the Sex Crimes Unit would like to you to identify errors in interviewing by police investigators when questioning child sex crime victims about the circumstances during the alleged offense(s). The psychopathology of the suspect and the victim are very important, but the victim can be misled unintentionally by police resulting in false or inaccurate complaint information.
The Commander of the Sex Crimes Unit would like you to outline and explain the specific areas to be avoided when questioning a child as a sex crime victim.
The use of suggestive questions The implication of confirmation by other people Use of positive and negative consequences Repetitious questioning Inviting speculation In a 3-5-page paper, address the specific concerns, and explain why it is preferable to have the child interviewed by a person with the qualifications to potentially testify as an expert witness in subsequent criminal trials. Wait until I send you the Template you have to follow to do this assignment. When she sends it to me I’ll email it to you. This will be on November the 7th 2018 or so! Not sure what her template will be like so you know.
In the United States we have two parallel frameworks that arrangement with people that perpetrate wrongdoings as well as offenses against society. First we have the criminal equity framework, a court which manages grown-ups who perpetrate different violations. Also, we have the adolescent equity framework, a court planned particularly for minors and is by and large idea to help restore the guilty party. The striking contrast between these two frameworks, as Mitcheal Ritter puts it, "is the utilization of particular wording to allude to their comparable methodology. State and government lawmaking bodies proposed this expressed variety to abstain from trashing kids as "lawbreakers" and to separate the adolescent framework from the criminal equity framework" (Ritter 2010, 222). The significant issue I expect to take a gander at it is regardless of whether we ought to cancel the adolescent equity framework. In the first place, we will take a gander at the situation of keeping the present framework, why it needs to remain set up, and why over the long haul it is the most advantageous to the adolescent. Second, we will analyze the exploration of Barry Feld, a standout amongst the most persuasive backers on why it should be canceled on account of the absence of established rights that an adolescent does not get while being attempted under the Juvenile equity framework. Thirdly, I will take a gander at each gathering's positions and scrutinizing it to see it what the solid and powerless focuses are. At long last, I will display my very own assessment on whether to keep it, cancel it, or make a radical new framework out and out. Introduction of Position A: Do Not Abolish the Juvenile System To attempt an adolescent in grown-up court is in no way, shape or form the correct choice. In this segment we will take a gander at proof and contentions on why the adolescent equity framework ought not be canceled. Adolescents are not quite the same as grown-ups and along these lines ought not be permitted to stand preliminary in the criminal equity framework. Kids are not alright grown rationally, when contrasted with a grown-up, to be attempted in the grown-up remedial framework. This is the reason numerous individuals take the position, "no chance should we dispose of the adolescent equity framework." The "executive of the state's (Washington) Bureau of Juvenile Detention Services is looking to keep 16-and 17-year-old wrongdoers out of the state's criminal equity framework" (McNeil 2008). To secure up a kid a grown-up rectification office is in no way, shape or form the correct thought regardless of whether they are "isolated" from the grown-ups. On the off chance that an adolescent perpetrates a "grown-up wrongdoing" like burglary, robbery or as a rule tranquilize violations, a handy solution is to detain that person in a grown-up jail to rebuff him and ensure society. While this may work for grown-ups, it is improper for a young. Promoters contend that we should keep the adolescent equity framework on the grounds that "numerous examinations likewise have discovered that fundamentally harsher disciplines are dispensed to adolescents in grown-up court when contrasted and adolescents in adolescent court, especially for genuine or fierce offenses" (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 727). Sending an adolescent to grown-up court at such a youthful age can be risky for the tyke, on the grounds that the court needs to be strict with the tyke by demonstrating to them that their conduct won't go on without serious consequences and in light of the fact that in grown-up court the kid will pass up instructive and rehabilitative projects all the more promptly accessible in adolescent confinement offices. Kurlycheck and Johnson contend that "Adolescent courts are described by aura choices that in a general sense vary from grown-up courts in their emblematic significance, corrective and treatment options, and discipline objectives" (2010). In an examination in Pennsylvania, Kurlycheck and Johnson looked at an example of adolescents attempted in adolescent court with adolescents who were exchanged to grown-up court and demonstrated that the grown-up courts were harsher on the adolescent: "overall, their sentences were 80 percent more extreme than for their young grown-up partners" (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Adolescents ought not be permitted to be attempted in grown-up court since studies have demonstrated that many "adolescents work at levels like crippled grown-ups who need capability; not as a result of diagnosable emotional wellness issues, but rather in view of formative youthfulness" (Katner 2006, 507). The hypothesis that condemning a young to a grown-up jail will diminish recidivism and expectation that the experience will "frighten him straight," is invalid. Research demonstrates that "encounters with grown-up prisons and jails demonstrate that those offices may impart fear however are generally inwardly and frequently physically-risky for youth" (Butler 2011, 114). At long last, Frank Zimring contended that "youthful law violators are less at fault, and along these lines merit less discipline regardless of what sort of court may attempt and sentence them" (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Kurlycheck and Johnson likewise affirm what Katner is stating by clarifying that "young people are at psychosocial inconveniences as far as obligation, peer impact, balance, and point of view; they are less ready to anticipate future outcomes of their activities" (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Young people in the detainment framework have a normal IQ of 85, when contrasted with the national normal of 100, and about 60% "in confinement meet the criteria for somewhere around one mental turmoil" (Butler 2011, 111). Research by Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., chief of Systems Research at the National Center of Juvenile Justice, demonstrates that " 68% of submitted guys were determined to have a psychological well-being issue, and research shows that the rate is more noteworthy for females in duty offices, half of submitted guys had a substance misuse finding" (Katner 2006, 509). In the event that an adolescent has a psychological instability "then it is our obligation to address those necessities. A state has no privilege to decline arbitrated adolescents. It is the adolescent equity framework's legitimate and moral duty to concede them, and make arrangements for their sheltered and secure consideration and treatment" (Smith 2012). The American Public Health Association found in their Cox relative peril ponder "that better emotional well-being administrations decreased the danger of starting and ensuing adolescent equity contribution by 31%" (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004) and had more grounded outcomes with more genuine guilty parties. Their discoveries said that "enhanced psychological well-being administrations decreased the danger of adolescent equity association" (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004). "We should recall that the adolescent equity framework is intended to decrease recidivism, assist the person with their battles, and incorporate them once again into the network. "At the point when an adolescent wrongdoer is reintegrated into the network following a year being advised, treated, and instructed, the network is more secure than it would be if that equivalent reprobate youth were detained for a long time and discharged with no readiness to regard himself and society and to abstain from rehashing a similar conduct. In Missouri, for instance, just 8 percent of adolescent delinquents come back to the equity framework inside three years; the national normal is more than 50 percent" (House 2010). "Diminishing recidivism has both prompt and long haul benefits. It has been assessed that adolescents who turned out to be grown-up guilty parties cost society somewhere in the range of $1.5 and $1.8 million each" (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 224). Accordingly, effective instruction is a standout amongst the most essential devices that an adolescent can have while bolted up. As per the Journal of Correctional Education, quality instruction and fruitful work "is seen, unequivocally, as the most intense apparatus in recidivism decrease, recovery of adolescent reprobate [â€¦]into a socially gainful, solid, and glad grown-up" (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 225). In any case, the article notes that the level of training that is conveyed to adolescents while imprisoned is broadly perceived as being a long way from as successful as it ought to be. Society needs our adolescents to succeed, be fruitful, and be typical individuals from society. That is the reason numerous supporters have faith in keeping them out of the criminal equity framework since they need to help bring these people once more into society. Promoters for this framework trust that adolescent equity frameworks are the best in light of the fact that once an adolescent is secured up a grown-up remedial framework, that individual "will have a criminal record that tails them forever, which would not be the situation on the off chance that they had been attempted in family court" (McNeil 2008). When a kid is named as a criminal in the public eye (marking hypothesis,) not exclusively will it be hard for him to apply for an occupation with his grown-up criminal record, he will likewise convey the name of "criminal" over his head while back in the public arena. Introduction of Position B: Abolish the Juvenile System In this area we will take a gander at why it is a smart thought to annul the adolescent equity framework. Barry Feld is one of the real promoters for nullifying the adolescent equity framework. He trusts the framework ought to be tossed out on the grounds that adolescents are as often as possible not managed their sacred rights in adolescent court. Barry Feld, a law teacher from the U of M and a specialist on the adolescent equity framework, says the adolescent equity framework should be nullified. He asserts that "inside the previous three decades, legal choices, authoritative alterations, and regulatory changes have changed the adolescent court from an ostensibly rehabilitative social welfare office into a downsized, below average criminal court for youngsters. These changes have changed over the authentic perfect of the adolescent court as a social welfare establishment into a reformatory framework that gives youthful guilty parties neither treatment nor equity" (Feld 1997, 68). In light of these disappointments, Feld is recommending that the adolescent court be coordinated into the customary criminal court framework. Feld discusses how the adolescent equity framework needs>GET ANSWER