Prosecuting Child Sexual Abuse: The Importance of Evidence Type

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorWalsh, W. A., Jones, L. M., Cross, T. P., & Lippert, T.
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-22T15:58:35Z
dc.date.available2017-03-22T15:58:35Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.description.abstractCorroborating evidence has been associated with a decrease in children’s distress during the court process, yet few studies have empirically examined the impact of evidence type on prosecution rates. This study examined the types of evidence and whether charges were filed in a sample of child sexual abuse cases (n = 329). Cases with a child disclosure, a corroborating witness, an offender confession, or an additional report against the offender were more likely to have charges filed, controlling for case characteristics. When cases were lacking strong evidence (confession, physical evidence, eyewitness), cases with a corroborating witness were nearly twice as likely to be charged. Charged cases tended to have at least two types of evidence, regardless of whether there was a child disclosure or noten_US
dc.identifier.citationWalsh, W. A., Jones, L. M., Cross, T. P., & Lippert, T. (2010). Prosecuting child sexual abuse: The importance of evidence type. Crime & Delinquency, 56(3), 436-454.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV175_Online%20version.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11212/3275
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherCrime & Delinquencyen_US
dc.subjectsexual abuseen_US
dc.subjectprosecutionen_US
dc.subjectevidenceen_US
dc.titleProsecuting Child Sexual Abuse: The Importance of Evidence Typeen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Collections

CALiO Collection of Resources