The field of children's testimony is in turmoil, but a resolution to seemingly intractable debates now appears attainable. In this review, we place the current disagreement in historical context and describe psychological and legal views of child witnesses held by scholars since the turn of the 20th century. Although there has been consistent interest in children's suggestibility over the past century, the past 15 years have been the most active in terms of the number of published studies and novel theorizing about the causal mechanisms that underpin the observed findings. A synthesis of this research posits three "families " of factors—cognitive, social, and biological—that must be considered if one is to understand seemingly contradictory interpretations of the findings. We conclude that there are reliable age differences in suggestibility but that even very young children are capable of recalling much that is forensically relevant. Findings are discussed in terms of the role of expert witnesses. Since the turn of the century, psycholegal scholars have examined the suggestibility of children's testimony in an effort to determine whether they would be credible witnesses. A major issue in this research concerns the degree to which heightened

This study focusses on the experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse across three jurisdictions – Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. Specifically, the research examines the experiences of child complainants in the criminal justice system as well as the consequences of their involvement in the process. In-depth interviews with children are combined with data gathered from parents, crown prosecutors, defence lawyers, court support personnel and members of the judiciary. On the individual level, the discussion analyses the significant processes in the criminal justice process for child complainants. On the systemic level, the implications for legislators and legal practitioners is presented. From a theoretical perspective, the report examines why decades of reform have achieved limited gains for Australian children, and why the criminal justice system remains the legally sanctioned context for the abuse of children. This is a project supported by a Grant from the Criminology Research Council. The views expressed are the responsibility of the author and are not necessarily those of

improving the justice system’s response to crimes against children. OJJDP recognizes that children are at increased risk for crime victimization. Not only are children the victims of many of the same crimes that victimize adults, they are subject to other crimes, like child abuse and neglect, that are specific to childhood. The impact of these crimes on young victims can be devastating, and the violent or sexual victimization of children can often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. The purpose of OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Series is to improve and expand the nation’s efforts to better serve child victims by presenting the latest information about child victimization, including analyses of crime victimization statistics, studies of child victims and their special needs, and descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs. The juvenile victim justice system is not as widely recognized in part because it is a fragmented system. It has not been conceptualized as a whole or put into place by a common set of statutes in the way the juvenile offender system has. Many of the agencies that handle juvenile victims are part of other sys tems, not designed primarily with juve nile victims in mind. This Bulletin introduces the concept that a justice system exists that responds to juvenile victims. This juvenile victim justice system is a complex set of agencies and institutions that include police, prosecutors, criminal and civil courts, child protection agencies, children’s advocacy centers, and victim services and mental health agencies. The system has a structure and sequence, but its operation, despite the thousands of cases it handles every year, is not as widely recognized and understood as the operation of the more familiar juvenile offender justice system. 1