Evidence Commons^™

Debates regarding the admissibility of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases are often characterized as between clinicians and researchers. Clinicians base their judgment on personal experience and anecdotes, whereas researchers base their judgment on scientific findings. Clinicians are willing to testify that a particular child has been sexually abused, whereas researchers cautiously avoid rendering a judgment about any particular case. Clinicians believe that they can interpret children's statements and behaviors to validate abuse, whereas researchers warn that children's statements and behaviors may be shaped by adults, including clinicians. Clinicians are happy to testify (typically for the prosecution), comfortably adopting …

Our study evaluates the moral reasoning skills of healthy and chronically ill 3 and 4 year olds with respect to illness and treatment, by use of an interview technique that reduces verbal demands on the child, We presented children with pairs of scenarios comparing ill characters with characters acting immorally and characters being punished, as well as with pairs of scenarios comparing treated characters with characters acting immorally and characters being punished. We asked children to point to the character who did something "naughty." With the exception of the chronically ill 3 year olds, the children performed consistently above chance …