{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01805869074492099, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.335714285714285, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Children, Sexual Abuse and Suggestibility: What Laypeople Think They Know and What the Literature Tells Us

This article summarizes the extensive research literature on laypeople's and jurors' beliefs about children's memory, suggestibility and responses to child sexual abuse. In particular, it discusses the extent and types of misconceptions held by laypeople/jurors, as well as the effects of age, education and gender on those misconceptions. The results from an analysis of mock jury studies where different types of expert testimony were presented are then considered in order to understand the types of expert testimony that would be admissible in courts in Australia, with a particular focus on the Uniform Evidence Act. As a result of this analysis, particular reform options are discussed and recommended in order to counter juror misconceptions in child sexual abuse trials.