People With Mental Retardation as Witnesses in Court: A Review

Abstract

Evidence concerning eyewitness testimony given by people with mental retardation in court was reviewed. Despite general perceptions that people with mental retardation make incompetent witnesses, available evidence suggests that they can provide accurate accounts of witnessed events. The accounts are usually less complete than those provided by the general population and are greatly influenced by the methods of questioning. The sparse available evidence suggests that cross-examination methods may lead to memory distortion. The use of closed, complex, and leading questions and the absence of aids to recall may have a particularly adverse effect on people with mental retardation. Resulting errors could lead to a false conviction or acquittal. Future policy and research in this much neglected area were discussed.

Sketching to Remember: Episodic Free Recall Task Support for Child Witnesses and Victims with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…The MRC technique significantly improves episodic remembering, typically reducing errors of omission (increasing the amount of information recalled) without a concomitant increase in errors of commission (the reporting of erroneous information) when used with typically developed adults (e.g., Dando, Wilcock, Milne, & Behnkle, 2011;Dando, Wilcock, & Milne, 2009;Roebers, & McConkey, 2003;Koehnken et al, 1999), some vulnerable witness populations (e.g., older adults: Dando, 2013;Wright & Holliday, 2007; and adults with intellectual disabilities: Kebbell, & Hatton, 1999;Milne, Clare, & Bull, 1999). However, the effects of the MRC when used with typically developing children are somewhat mixed.…”

The ideal victims? Women with intellectual disability as victims of prostitution-related crime

“…Such knowledge, accompanied by well thought-out methods and approaches, we believe, would have an immediate impact on the quality of both the interviews conducted, and consequently, the testimonies obtained during an investigation. The same can be expected to hold for the courts' ability to interpret the accumulated evidence, including, not least, the statements obtained from witnesses and victims (see also Cederborg and Lamb 2008;Kebbell and Hatton 1999). The important thing here is not that the courts' evidence requirement should be relaxed or revised, but, rather, the need to create better conditions for persons with ID in legal contexts to ensure that their rights are properly met within the the justice system.…”

“…Persons with ID rarely appear as witnesses in court, especially in cases where they are both the victim and the sole witness testifying against a defendant (Kebbell and Hatton 1999;Sanders et al 1997). The distrust that, in this context, professionals show to persons with ID has been explained by their lack of knowledge about these people and their life circumstances (Cederborg and Lamb 2008;Kebbell and Hatton 1999).…”

“…The distrust that, in this context, professionals show to persons with ID has been explained by their lack of knowledge about these people and their life circumstances (Cederborg and Lamb 2008;Kebbell and Hatton 1999). In one study, for example, it was found that even where practitioners had knowledge about ID, they lacked knowledge about the effects and consequences of the disabilities in question (Kvarfordt, Purcell, and Shannon 2005).…”

A Learning-Disabled Woman who had been Raped: A Multi-Agency Approach

“…Moreover, when incidents occur, the victims are sometimes perceived to make poor witnesses and the cases do not come to court 2 . Support and care may demand a multi-agency approach 3,4 , as illustrated by the following case.…”