Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Investigating the Role of Delayed Disclosure and Relationship to the Perpetrator
Child sexual abuse (CSA) claims brought forward weeks, months, or years after the alleged events are commonplace, yet the trial-level ramifications of delayed disclosure remain unclear. In the present study, we investigated the influence of length of delayed disclosure (1 day, 1 month, 10 months) as...
Authors: | ; ; |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2022
|
In: |
Journal of interpersonal violence
Year: 2022, Volume: 37, Issue: 23/24, Pages: NP23374-NP23396 |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Keywords: |
Summary: | Child sexual abuse (CSA) claims brought forward weeks, months, or years after the alleged events are commonplace, yet the trial-level ramifications of delayed disclosure remain unclear. In the present study, we investigated the influence of length of delayed disclosure (1 day, 1 month, 10 months) as a function of the victim-perpetrator relationship (next-door neighbor, stepfather) on mock jurors? perceptions of a CSA case. Jury-eligible participants (N = 328) read a mock trial summary describing an alleged incident of CSA between an adult male defendant and a seven-year-old female victim. Participants then rendered various case judgments. When length of delay was 10 months versus 1 day, mock jurors rendered fewer guilty verdicts and lower ratings of victim trustworthiness, believability, memory strength, and memory accuracy. Effects of length of delay varied as a function of the victim-perpetrator relationship, but only when the perpetrator was the victim?s next-door neighbor versus stepfather. When the perpetrator was the victim?s next-door neighbor, participants rated the likelihood of abuse as higher and the victim?s memory as stronger with shorter versus longer lengths of delay. Delay did not vary as a function of the victim-perpetrator relationship when the perpetrator was the victim?s stepfather. Findings have implications for trial-level safeguards (e.g., expert testimony) in CSA cases involving delayed disclosure. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1552-6518 |
DOI: | 10.1177/08862605221078812 |