Young Children's Competency to Take the Oath

Q3 Social Sciences
T. Lyon
{"title":"Young Children's Competency to Take the Oath","authors":"T. Lyon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.161190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite liberalization of the rules of evidence, children must still understand the difference between truth and falsehood, appreciate the obligation to tell the truth, and take some form of the oath before they are allowed to testify. The legal requirements raise three questions: (a) How should children's understanding be assessed? (b) What form of the oath should be used? and (c) Does understanding and/or oath-taking correlate with honesty? I review the research on these issues and present data from a series of studies involving maltreated and non-maltreated children. The research demonstrates that conventional methods of assessing children's understanding are prone to serious error and that young children may have difficulty understanding even simplified versions of the oath. I recommend more sensitive measures for qualifying children and a child-friendly version of the oath. I also review research testing the relation among oath-taking competence, oath-taking, and honesty, and present data from two studies demonstrating that the oath can affect children's honesty.","PeriodicalId":35903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.161190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Despite liberalization of the rules of evidence, children must still understand the difference between truth and falsehood, appreciate the obligation to tell the truth, and take some form of the oath before they are allowed to testify. The legal requirements raise three questions: (a) How should children's understanding be assessed? (b) What form of the oath should be used? and (c) Does understanding and/or oath-taking correlate with honesty? I review the research on these issues and present data from a series of studies involving maltreated and non-maltreated children. The research demonstrates that conventional methods of assessing children's understanding are prone to serious error and that young children may have difficulty understanding even simplified versions of the oath. I recommend more sensitive measures for qualifying children and a child-friendly version of the oath. I also review research testing the relation among oath-taking competence, oath-taking, and honesty, and present data from two studies demonstrating that the oath can affect children's honesty.
幼儿的宣誓能力
尽管证据规则放宽了,但孩子们仍然必须理解真假的区别,认识到讲真话的义务,并在被允许作证之前进行某种形式的宣誓。法律要求提出了三个问题:(a)如何评估儿童的理解能力?(b)应采用什么形式宣誓?(c)理解和/或宣誓是否与诚实相关?我回顾了关于这些问题的研究,并提出了一系列涉及受虐待和未受虐待儿童的研究数据。研究表明,评估儿童理解能力的传统方法容易出现严重错误,幼儿甚至可能难以理解简化版本的誓言。我建议对符合条件的儿童采取更敏感的措施,并制定适合儿童的誓言。我还回顾了检验宣誓能力、宣誓和诚实之间关系的研究,并提出了两项研究的数据,证明宣誓可以影响儿童的诚实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation (JELL) has provided a national, unbiased forum for the discussion and presentation of new ideas and theories in environmental and natural resources law since 1985. JELL educates students for careers in environmental law, disseminates important information to the environmental community, and plays an integral role at the University of Oregon Law School"s nationally and internationally recognized environmental law program.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信