The sexual assault case of a three-year-old girl that drew national attention last year and again recently has sparked debate on two issues — the credibility of young victims and proof of lack of consent.
In cases of sexual abuse, the child is often the only source of evidence that the crime occurred. Thus the child’s testimony is the most important evidence in the case. In developed countries such as the US and the UK, child victims are usually interviewed by police officers or social workers who have been specially trained to conduct interviews with children.
A huge amount of research shows that young children can provide detailed and accurate statements if they are interviewed properly. For example, trained police officers usually follow guidelines specially designed for children where the interviewer asks simple, “child-friendly” questions that are age appropriate and more likely to obtain accurate information.
In the case of the sexual abuse of the three-year-old girl, the Taiwan High Court ruled that the girl’s testimony was not substantiated by crime scene and medical evidence. The question we need to ask is: Was the quality of the girl’s testimony poor because of bad interviewing by the police officer?
It is unreasonable for the court to assume that a three-year-old girl is as capable as a teenager or an adult in describing her experience. Instead, we should question how the interview was conducted. Did the police officer ask questions that are too difficult for a three-year-old to understand? Did the interviewer prepare the child for interviewing by explaining the purpose of the interview and building rapport with the child? The court should question the quality of the interview before ruling that the child is an unreliable witness.
The court also ruled that the prosecutors failed to prove that the act was committed against the child’s will because she had not cried nor complained after the alleged crime. What the court failed to consider is that most children do not understand what sexual abuse is and therefore do not recognize inappropriate touches. If the three-year-old girl did not know she was being abused, it is not surprising if she did not indicate resistance.
According to the law in most developed nations, an adult having sexual intercourse with a minor below the legal age of consent constitutes statutory rape, based on the principle that a minor is not capable of consent and that any apparent consent by a minor could not be considered legal consent. The fact that proof of lack of consent is still required by law in Taiwan is a gross oversight of children’s vulnerabilities and a violation of their rights.
The conclusion that can be made from all the arguments about this case is that anyone dealing with child victims should have some training in child psychology. Police officers and social workers that interview child victims must be properly trained so they understand what children are capable of explaining, and what they cannot, as well as the types of questions they should ask to obtain the most detailed and accurate information. This is especially important for developmentally disabled children.
Forensic interviewing training should be a compulsory component in police and social work training. We should protect the rights of children who have been abused and help them provide the testimony needed to bring offenders to justice.
Teoh Yee-San has a doctorate from the University of Cambridge and is now in the department of psychology at Brooklyn College, City University of New York.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers