Advertisement

Interkultureller Vergleich kindlicher Zeugen‑/Opferbefragungen: Was wir von anderen Ländern lernen können

  • Nathalie BrackmannEmail author
  • Elmar Habermeyer
Übersicht
  • 213 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Bei der Befragung von Kindern, deren Aussage v. a. bei sog. Aussage-gegen-Aussage-Konstellationen, in denen objektives Beweismaterial fehlt (z. B. in Kindesmissbrauchsfällen), von zentraler Bedeutung ist, gibt es verschiedene länderspezifische Herangehensweisen, die zum Ziel haben, unter Wahrung der Rechte des Kindes eine möglichst adäquate Beweissicherung der Zeugenaussage zu gewährleisten. Der vorliegende Artikel zeigt einen interkulturellen Vergleich bezüglich Standards der Befragung von kindlichen Zeugen auf. Dabei wird auf die Relevanz von qualitativ hochwertigen Befragungen eingegangen, um zum einen strafrechtlich verwertbare Aussagen sicherzustellen und zum anderen Erinnerungsverzerrungen zu vermeiden. Es wird auf die Problematik von Pseudoerinnerungen eingegangen, bevor anschließend Bemühungen zur Verbesserung des Erinnerungsabrufes dargelegt werden. Dabei werden u. a. zwei wesentliche Wege, die in Großbritannien bzw. in skandinavischen Ländern zur Verbesserung der Qualität von Zeugenaussagen etabliert wurden, näher erläutert. Hierbei handelt es sich um einen strukturierten Interviewleitfaden sowie um ein interdisziplinäres Kompetenzzentrum zur Befragung von kindlichen Zeugen. Abschließend werden hieraus Empfehlungen für die deutsche Praxis abgeleitet.

Schlüsselwörter

Zeugenbefragung Kindliche Zeugen/Opfer Barnahus-Modell Strukturierte Befragungen Zeugengedächtnis 

Intercultural comparison of interviewing child witnesses/victims: what we can learn from other countries

Abstract

Child testimonies can become the centerpiece of an investigation in so-called one person’s word against another’s constellations, where objective evidence is missing (e.g. in cases of child abuse). There are several country-specific approaches that aim at ensuring adequate proof of evidence of the testimony while protecting the rights of the child. This article presents an intercultural comparison regarding the standards of interviewing child witnesses. This article highlights the relevance of conducting high-quality interviews in order to ensure legally admissible statements and to avoid memory distortions. The issue of false memories is addressed before demonstrating efforts to improve memory recall. Among others, two main approaches that have been established in the UK and Scandinavian countries to improve the quality of statements are addressed: a structured interview protocol and an interdisciplinary competence center for interviewing child witnesses. Finally, recommendations for the practical application in Germany are derived.

Keywords

Witness interviewing Child witnesses/victims Barnahus model Structured interviews Eyewitness memory 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

N. Brackmann und E. Habermeyer geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. Benia LR, Hauck-Filho N, Dillenburg M, Stein LM (2015) The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol: a meta-analytic review. J Child Sex Abus 24:259–279.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2015.1006749 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bericht zur polizeilichen Kriminalstatistik 2017 (2018) Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Bidrose S, Goodman GS (2000) Testimony and evidence: a scientific case study of memory for child sexual abuse. Appl Cogn Psychol 3:197–213.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200005/06)14:3<197::AID-ACP647>3.0.CO;2-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brackmann N (2013) Interviewing children with the national institute of child health and human development investigative interviewing (NICHD) protocol. In: Roos af Hjelmsätter E, Landström S (Hrsg) Interviewing child witnesses, Bd. 2013. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, S 45–52 (Proceedings of the Erasmus Mundus Joint PhD in Legal Psychology Theoretical Course Interviewing Child Witnesses)Google Scholar
  5. Brackmann N (2017) Are children really the poorer eyewitnesses? An analysis of counterintuitive developmental trends in eyewitness memory. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg (Dissertation)Google Scholar
  6. Brackmann N, Otgaar H, Roos af Hjelmsäter E, Sauerland M (2017) Testing a new approach to improve recall in different ages: providing witnesses with a model statement. Translational Issues in Psychological Science 3:131–142.  https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brainerd CJ, Reyna VF, Ceci SJ (2008) Developmental reversals in false memory: a review of data and theory. Psychol Bull 134:343–382.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.343 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruck M, Ceci SJ (1995) Amicus brief for the case of State of New Jersey v. Michaels presented by committee of concerned social scientists. Psychol Public Policy Law 1:272–322.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.1.2.272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bull R (2010) The investigative interviewing of children and other vulnerable witnesses: psychological research and working/professional practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology 15:5–23.  https://doi.org/10.1348/014466509X440160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ceci J, Bruck M (1993) Suggestibility of the child witness: a historical review and synthesis. Psychol Bull 113:403–439.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909-113.3.403 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dekens K, van der Sleen J (2013) Handleiding het kind als getuige [Richtlinie das Kind als Zeuge]. Stapel & de Koning, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. European Union (2015) Children’s involvement in civil and administrative judicial proceedings in the EU. Publications office of the European Union, Luxemburg  https://doi.org/10.2838/870379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher RP, Geiselman RE (1992) Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IL, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedrichsen G, Mauz G (1995) Prozesse: Missbrauch der Strafjustiz. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-9184337.html. Zugegriffen: 28. Dez. 2018 (Der Spiegel)Google Scholar
  15. Gabbert F, Memon A, Allan K (2003) Memory conformity: can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Appl Cogn Psychol 17:533–543.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garven S, Wood JM, Malpass RS, Shaw JS (1998) More than suggestion: the effect of interviewing techniques for the McMartin Preschool case. J Appl Psychol 83:347–359.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.347 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Garven S, Wood JM, Malpass RS (2000) Allegations of wrongdoing: the effects of reinforcement on children’s mundane and fantastic claims. J Appl Psychol 85:38–49.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.38 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hershkowitz I, Lamb ME, Katz C (2014) Allegation rates in forensic child abuse investigations: comparing the revised and standard NICHD protocols. Psychol Public Policy Law 20:336–344.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hershkowitz I, Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Katz C, Horowitz D (2012) The development of communicative and narrative skills among preschoolers: lessons from forensic interviews about child abuse. Child Dev 83:611–622.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01704.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Home Office and Department of Health (1992) Memorandum of good practice on video recorded interviews with child witnesses for criminal proceedings. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Howe ML, Wimmer MC, Gagnon N, Plumpton S (2009) An associative-activation theory of children’s and adults’ memory illusions. J Mem Lang 60:229–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johansson S, Stefansen K, Bakketeig E, Kaldal A (2017) Collaborating against child abuse: exploring the Nordic Barnahus model. Palgrave Macmillan, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay SD (1993) Source monitoring. Psychol Bull 114(1):3–28.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonker F, Jonker-Bakker I (1997) Effects of ritual abuse: the results of three surveys in The Netherlands. Child Abuse Negl 21:541–556.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00011-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Laajasalo T, Korkman J, Pakkanen T, Oksanen M, Tuulikki L, Peltomaa E, Aronen ET (2018) Applying a research-based assessment model to child sexual abuse investigations: Model and case descriptions of an expert center. J Forensic Psychol Res Pract 18:177–197.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2018.1449496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Sternberg KJ, Aldridge J, Pearson S, Stewart HL et al (2009) Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances the quality of investigative interviews with alleged victims of child sexual abuse in Britain. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:449–467.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamb ME, Hershkowitz I, Orbach Y, Esplin PW (2008) Tell me what happened: structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Esplin PW, Horowitz D (2007) A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: a review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse Negl 31:1201–1231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Orbach Y, Esplin PW, Mitchell S (2002) Is ongoing feedback necessary to maintain the quality of investigative interviews with allegedly abused children? Appl Dev Sci 6:35–41.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loftus EF, Pickrell JE (1995) The formation of false memories. Psychiatr Ann 25:720–725.  https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-19951201-07 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loftus EF, Miller DG, Burns HJ (1987) Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 4:19–31.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.1.19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ministry of Justice (2011) Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. Ministry of Justice, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson K, Fivush R (2004) The emergence of autobiographical memory: a social cultural developmental theory. Psychol Rev 111:486–511.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.486 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Otgaar H, Horselenberg R, van Kampen R, Lalleman K (2012) Clothed and unclothed human figure drawings lead to more correct and incorrect reports of touch in children. Psychol Crime Law 18:641–653.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.532129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Otgaar H, Howe ML, Peters M, Smeets T, Moritz S (2014) The production of spontaneous false memories across childhood. J Exp Child Psychol 121:28–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Otgaar H, Howe ML, Brackmann N, Smeets T (2016a) The malleability of developmental trends in neutral and negative memory illusions. J Exp Psychol Gen 145:31–55.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000127 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Otgaar H, de Ruiter C, Howe ML, Hoetmer L, van Reekum P (2016b) A case concerning children’s false memories of abuse: recommendations regarding expert witness work. Psychiatry Psychol Law 0:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1230924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poole DA, Bruck M, Pipe M‑E (2011) Forensic interviewing aids: do props help children answer questions about touching? Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:11–15.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388804 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Principe GF, Schindelwolf E (2012) Natural conversations as a source of false memories in children: implications for the testimony of young witnesses. Dev Rev 32:205–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Principe GF, Kanaya T, Ceci SJ, Singh M (2006) Believing is seeing how rumors can engender false memories in preschoolers. Psychol Sci 17:243–248.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01692.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Santtila P (2016) Lecture: Witch or a witch-hunt? [PowerPoint slides]. Persönliche KorrespondenzGoogle Scholar
  42. Schade B, Harschneck M (2000) Die BGH-Entscheidung im Rückblick auf die Wormser Missbrauchsprozesse. Konsequenzen für die Glaubhaftigkeitsbegutachtung aus der Sicht des psychologischen Gutachters und des Strafverteidigers. Prax Rechtspsychologie 10:28–47Google Scholar
  43. Schreiber N, Bellah LD, Martinez Y, McLaurin KA, Strok R, Garven S, Wood JM (2006) Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: a case study. Soc Influ 1:16–47.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500361739 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scoboria A, Wade KA, Lindsay DS, Azad T, Strange D, Ost J, Hyman IE (2017) A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. Memory 25:146–163.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1260747 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Volbert R (2010) Grundlagen forensischer Sachverständigentätigkeit. In: Volbert R, Dahle KP (Hrsg) Forensisch-psychologische Diagnostik im Strafverfahren. Hogrefe, Göttingen, S 9–66Google Scholar
  46. Volbert R, Dahle KP (2010) Forensisch-psychologische Diagnostik im Strafverfahren. Hogrefe Verlag, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  47. Volbert R, Steller M, Galow A (2010) Das Glaubhaftigkeitsgutachten. In: Kröber H‑L, Dölling D, Leygraf N, Sass H (Hrsg) Handbuch der Forensischen Psychiatrie. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, S 623–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik für Forensische PsychiatriePsychiatrische Universitätsklinik ZürichZürichSchweiz

Personalised recommendations