Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcc12.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc12!wa263
From: wa263@sdcc12.UUCP (bookmark)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Should child witnesses testify by TV?
Message-ID: <164@sdcc12.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 00:05:35 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.164
Posted: Thu Feb  7 00:05:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Feb-85 17:32:23 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: You See Sandy Eggo
Lines: 65

<- bug snack

	The California state assembly has just passed a law to permit
children under fourteen to testify in sexual-abuse cases (perhaps in
other cases, too) by closed-circuit television.  The child will be in
a room separate from the courtroom, and only a picture of his face (and
the sound of his voice) will be transmitted to the court.  Even the jury
will see only the television image.  The child will not be able to see
the judge, the jury, the accused, or the courtroom audience.  The child
may, on occasion, be able to see one of the questioning attorneys--but
not always.

	Advocates of this law and trial-procedure say that it will reduce
the psychological traumas the child witness may suffer from his exposure
to the courtroom.  They contend that the experience of sitting in a court-
room under the gaze of many people whilst relating testimony will damage
the child's mental health.   Also, some advocates have stated that they
believe a child witness will be more willing to give testimony under
these circumstances, away from the intimidating qualities of the courtroom
``scene.''

	Opponents, however, complain that this procedure will endanger
the courtroom search for truth.  They say that the judge and jury need
to observe a witness's entire demeanour:  fidgeting, hand-wringing, foot-
kicking, and all; not just his face, to form a proper opinion as to the
content of his testimony.  Furthermore, they argue, the isolation of the
witness from the courtroom will encourage false testimony by removing the
moral pressure provided by the defendant's presence and the court's
scrutiny.  Also, the child witness might be ``coached'' or intimidated
during his testimony by persons off-camera without the knowledge of the
jury.

	The defendant's right to be confronted with the witnesses
against him at his trial is an ancient one.  The physical appearance
of the witnesses is important for several reasons:  their identities
may be clearly established; their testimony may be taken in front of
the court, away from intimidation by parties to the case; and they may be
subjected to moral pressures to encourage truthfulness-- the presence
of the defendant, the solemnity of the courtroom, the august countenance
of the judge, the scrutiny of the jury.  Appearance by television
destroys all of these good effects.

	However, with child witnesses, there does exist a fear
that a public, courtroom appearance will prevent them from giving
proper testimony--due to their own fearful reaction to being so examined.

	Is this ``TV testimony'' law really proper?  Is it possible to
guarantee every defendant a fair trial when the witnesses against him are
to be cloistered away in a TV studio, out of either sight or hearing of
the court, except through the narrow eye of the video system?


	I don't think so.  I think this law is bad.  No one has actually
demonstrated any psychological harm to any child resulting from his
appearance in a courtroom to testify.  I suspect that going to the dentist
is far more terrifying for most youngsters.  As for children being
intimidated by the courtroom, this would appear to be a good thing.  After
they've calmed down a little (which they will--courtrooms aren't dungeons,
after all) kids will be more likely to speak the truth if they're fearful
of being found out by the magnificent machinery of the law.

	Is there anyone out there to defend this ``video witness'' law?


					bookmark