What judges really look for? Unveiling the assessment of reliability in children’s accounts

Background: Child abuse is a worldwide issue, and judicial decisions in cases involving child abuse are mainly based on the victim’s account. Although there has been extensive research on child interviewing, little research has examined the judicial decision-making process in such cases. Jurors’ perceptions of a child’s reliability have been researched previously. However, in Brazil, a single judge decides cases involving child abuse. In 2017, Brazil changed its legislation, making it mandatory for children to be interviewed by a trained interviewer in an adapted environment. This change could directly affect the type of information that informs judicial decisions.

Objective: This research aimed (i) to understand how legal practitioners perceive and assess the reliability of information obtained in forensic interviews with children and (ii) to understand how judges make decisions in cases involving abuse against children. Although children are capable of providing reliable accounts, research has not addressed what legal practitioners consider reliable or how they reach that conclusion.

Participants and setting: Brazilian judges (n=16), prosecutors (n=13), and forensic interviewers (n=17) working with cases involving abuse against children (N=46), from thirteen of the twenty-seven Brazilian states and the Federal District.

Methods: Semi-structured interview was conducted with each participant, and reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken.

Results: Key findings revealed: (a) lexical confusion between the meanings of reliability and credibility; (b) that judges, prosecutors, and interviewers have different understandings of what type of detail is needed to make a decision from within the victim’s account; (c) that legal practitioners require a deeper understanding of the interview phases; and (d) that the victim’s version of the facts carries more weight than the accused’s version during the judicial decision-making process.

Conclusions: The results highlighted that judges’ decisions are reportedly ultimately based on the alleged victim’s account, which may undermine the accused’s participation in the judicial decision-making process. When a child provides details about the event, the alleged offender is likely to be convicted. However, participants serving in different legal roles had varied perceptions regarding what type of detail is relevant to the judicial decision.