Long-term consequences of Child Abuse on the Society

Long-term Consequences of Child Abuse Child abuse is the physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment of a child by his or her parent or guardian. Many do not realize how many children are abused in their homes every day. According to a publication titled Child Maltreatment 2008, children are more likely to be the victim of child abuse and neglect than they are to be the victim of anything else (Speak-Up-Be-Safe). In fact, more than one million children in the United States alone are a victim of child abuse (Wisdom, Hiller-Sturmhà ¶fel, p. 52). One in seven adults between the ages of 18 and 54 in the U. S. report that they were sexually abused, physically abused, and/or were the victim of emotional abuse in their childhood†¦show more content†¦This was found true even when twins were compared, one of whom was maltreated, while the other was not (Picker, Les). Of those convicted of first degree murder, two thirds of them reported that they had a history of severe physical ab use during their childhood (Garrett, Jared.) Many cases of juvenile delinquents also say that they have been extremely physically punished and assaulted numerous times in their home (Garrett, Jared). Also, most prostitutes report that as a child, they had been both physically and sexually abused (Garrett, Jared). The fact that so many of these delinquents have history of child abuse really shows how much child abuse impacts the lives of these individuals. These people may believe that what they are doing and what they have done is okay when it actually isn’t. They were abused as a child and were not taught the differences between right and wrong from their parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who abused them. With increased criminal activity from child abuse, the law is doing their part to try to control it. Increased criminal activity means that there is a greater need for laws to be enforced (Garrett, Jared). Police officers are pushed more and overworked. Prisons get more crammed and become overcrowded. This is something that is not good for society as a whole. Instead of our community growing safer, it is in fact, having the number of criminalsShow MoreRelatedParenting Is A Huge Public Health Issue Facing Society Today901 Words   |  4 Pagespublic health issue facing society today (Hoghughi, 1998). The environment a parent sets for their child is important because childhood is the time when human beings are particularly susceptible and responsive to external experiences (Bornstein, 1998). Children will grow up to believe behaviors and ideals of their parents are appropriate and acceptable by society. The influence parents have on kids has a major effect on issues such as teen pregnancy, substance abuse, child abuse, juvenile crime, and mentalRead MoreEffects Of Child Maltreatment On Children859 Words   |  4 PagesConsequences of Child Maltreatment The maltreatment of children within the United States is an unfortunate but evident issue that presents some very detrimental consequences for the victims. Victims of child maltreatment typically suffer from both short-term and long-term consequences, resulting from the negligence of their parents. Across the nation techniques and measures have been taken in order to prevent the advancement of child abuse within high-risk homes, although despite these efforts sometimesRead MoreEssay on Child Abuse and Neglect1519 Words   |  7 Pages Many children in the US have to endure child abuse. Most people do not understand the consequences the abused children have to live with for the rest of their lives. Because child abuse is a long-term problem, it impacts not only the child and family, but also the society as a whole. Children who are abused usually end up with self-esteem problems and lose their self-confidence. Therefore, they end up getting addicted to drugs or alcohol, wh ich can create problems for their whole communityRead MoreThe Long Term Health Consequences Of Child Physical Abuse Essay1729 Words   |  7 Pagesof the article â€Å"The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect: a systematic review and meta-analysis† by Norman, et.al. The research aims at highlighting the evidence that relates child physical and sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect with the subsequent mental and physical health outcomes. Child physical abuse, emotional violence, sexual assault, and neglect are some of the most severe concerns affecting children and our society as a whole. These behaviorsRead MoreThe Impact Of Sexual Child Abuse On America1517 Words   |  7 Pages The Impact of Sexual Child Abuse in America Child abuse has been going on for many years. There are many forms of child abuse, however, there is one that is far worse than the rest; sexual abuse. Children has a natural instinct to trust too easily and believe what people tell them, especially if they know those people. Statistics show very high figures of sexual child abuse in America. When children undergo sexual abuse, it impacts their whole being. There are physicalRead MoreViolence Against Children Essay1013 Words   |  5 Pagesservices, health care and education, child abuse, neglect, exploitation, forced to beg, trafficked. Children are still one of the social groups at risk, facing many problems that remain unresolved. Although the consequences may vary according to the type and severity of the violence, the short and long-term consequences for children are very often serious and destructive and are costly. The laws that protect children’s rights are often not effective. Child abuse takes a variety of forms and is influencedRead MoreEffects Of Childhood Maltreatment On Children s Development1243 Words   |  5 Pages Consequences of Childhood Maltreatment on Children’s Development Lea A. Dixon American Public University Consequences of Maltreatment on Children’s Development â€Å"27% percent, of the 702,000 victims of Childhood Maltreatment, are under the age of Three.† (Child Maltreatment, 2014) The World Health Organization defines child maltreatment as â€Å"abuse and neglect that occurs to children under 18 years of age.† (Child Maltreatment, 2016)Read MoreHistory of Child Abuse1113 Words   |  5 PagesHistory of child abuse BSHS/408 February 15 2016 Chiffone N Shelton Abstract In order to discuss child abuse and neglect it is important to have a clear understanding of what child abuse and neglect is and the different form of child abuse. How the various types of child abuse and neglect are different from one another, ill-treatment of children comes in many forms, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional ill-treatment, and child neglect. Child neglect comes in many forms and occurs whenRead MoreThe Long Term Effects Of Child Maltreatment On Adult Survivors898 Words   |  4 PagesPREVENTING AND TREATING THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF CHILD MALTREATMENT ON ADULT SURVIVORS Child maltreatment is a term that covers a broad spectrum of child mistreatment including, child abuse (physical, sexual, and emotional) and child neglect (emotional and physical). Long term effects of child maltreat vary depending on the severity of the abuse or neglect and the length of time that the child is exposed to the abuse (i.e. if it is a onetime event or ongoing chronic exposure). As Greeson, et alRead MoreChild Abuse And Neglect Of Children1291 Words   |  6 PagesChild abuse and neglect are highly contested concepts, underpinned by and subject to a range of political and cultural factors particular to the society in which they occur. Therefore, child abuse and neglect are not phenomena that lend themselves to easy definition or measurement (Corby, 2006:79). This means that child abuse or neglect cannot be defined unless we take the cultural context into consideration, for what is considered to be abusive or neglectful in one society could be acceptable in

Law Essay Free Essays

Administrative Action Are grounds of judicial review so poorly defined that they enable the courts to pick and choose the cases in which they will grant judicial review? Should that be the case? Introduction Substantive Grounds of Review: Unreasonableness Unreasonableness as a ground of review is difficult to define with any clarity or certainty and as a direst result has often been branded as a problem ridden aspect of administrative law. The concept of Wednesday unreasonableness, formulated in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] and further developed in Council of Civil Service Unions v. We will write a custom essay sample on Law Essay or any similar topic only for you Order Now Minister for the Civil Service [1985] per Lord Diplock was that courts would intervene to correct an administrative action based on the ground of reasonableness only if it was â€Å"so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Indeterminacy as to the definition of Unreasonableness: Poorly defined grounds of review? The concept of unreasonableness as propagated by Lord Greene and adopted by Australian courts is inherently indeterminate. Whether a particular decision is reasonable or not is often nothing more than a question of degree and opinion by the courts. This creates an overt sense of arbitrariness which then calls into question the consistency and subsequently effectiveness of such a ground of review as illustrated by case law. The effectiveness of unreasonableness as a ground of review was blatantly called into question in the case of Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs where the High Court and the Federal Court differed in opinion as to what constituted unreasonableness which was manifestly unfair. This apparent inability of the courts to reach a consensus on what precisely constitutes the required degree of unreasonableness in order to allow a reversal of the disputed administrative decision calls into question the consistency with which it can be applied by courts. Although subsequent cases (Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs/ Luu v Renevier/ Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend) seemed to prefer an expansive interpretation of unreasonableness, in neither of these cases can it be said that the delegate’s decision represented something that was manifestly unfair or overwhelming as required by Lord Greene’s original version. Conversely, it can be argued that the Federal Court simply reviewed the merits of the case and substituted its decision for that of the original one. In these cases although it was difficult to reach the conclusion that the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have come to them, that is exactly what the courts did. This further prompts arguments that the ground of unreasonableness is so poorly defined that courts can pick and choose the cases in which they grant judicial review. The wider the interpretation of unreasonableness greater the risk that courts are in essence given greater opportunity to conduct a merits based review with the effect being that judicial review becomes less effective as it loses the element of consistency. In light of this realization, this ground has recently come under close scrutiny by both the judiciary and the legislature. Where unreasonableness does exist as a ground of review, both the High Court and the Federal Court have held unequivocally that it must be strictly construed and that the courts must abstain from using unreasonableness as a guise to hear an appeal and so engage in merits review of a case. In the cases of Minister of immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Eshetu and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Betkhoshabeh, the Court established strict constraints for unreasonableness, insisting that it is only to be used in the most extreme of cases and that the review should only extend to the legality of the decision. These cases clearly mark a turnaround from the earlier approach in Prasad. In essence his ground of review has been narrowed so that it is to be used only where there is unreasonableness in the very strict sense of the word such that courts can only intervene where only one possible conclusion could have been reached by the decision maker but was not so reached. Therefore precisely defining this ground of review is impossible due to conflicting needs to reign in unreasonableness as a ground of review as opposed to limiting its scope excessively. Proponents of the restrictive approach advocated in Eshetu would argue that a wider interpretation and application of unreasonableness may eventuate in judicial review extending to the merits of a case and possibly usurping the administrative process. However to restrict unreasonableness as a ground of review to that extent runs the risk of marginalizing this ground to the effect of making it redundant. This then gives birth to the possibility that occasions where judicial review was warranted due to the oppressive nature of administrative decisions would go unchecked. There must be a ground of review that can capture decisions such as that in Chan that would otherwise escape scrutiny. Moreover the arguments for and against a restrictive approach to interpreting unreasonableness do not of themselves remove other elements of unreasonableness as a ground of review that are poorly defined. The requirements for something overwhelming or for the evidence to support only one possible conclusion are no more determinate than those of the concept of reasonableness itself. There still exists the need for courts to engage in an evaluative, value laden inquiry as to the reasonableness (or the extent thereof) of a decision and this necessarily involves delving into the merits of a decision rather than its legality. The test of whether a decision is reasonable then hinges upon whether the evidence has been considered with propriety and reasonably and it is precisely this which makes the test one of poor definition. In determining whether the available evidence was reasonably interpreted, even considering the more recent restrictive approach propagated by courts, the courts are essentially disagreeing with the decision under review on an indeterminate ground. The danger of illegitimate judicial incursion into the merits of the decision remains present despite its strict construction. Violating the Distinction between merits and judicial review: Poorly defined grounds of review? Although courts can justify judicial review on the basis of Wednesbury unreasonableness, this justification is limited in that the courts cannot intervene simply because they do not agree with the administrative decision or view the facts differently. The distinction between judicial and merits review requires that courts only concern themselves with the question of whether the decision maker had acted within the confines of his power subject to the issues of relevancy, proprietary of purpose and unreasonableness. In no way must they concern themselves with the appropriateness of nor the policy considerations behind the decision in a bid to influence or criticize the policy. To do so would amount to a merits review and this would be contrary to the rule that the final authority on the merits of a decision should be the body vested with the discretionary power to do so by Parliament. The theory behind this is that although Courts have the constitutional authority to review decisions of the other arms of government, there is an ever present danger that they might extrapolate this duty excessively and effectively exercise the power vested by Parliament in the primary decision maker, hence substituting their decision for that of the intended decision maker. This would amount to a radical breach of the doctrine of Separation of Powers due to the courts’ exercise of a â€Å"surrogate political process† in direct and conflictual contravention of the notion of Parliamentary sovereignty. The aggregate effect would be a decay of our established system of parliamentary democracy as the courts are neither democratically elected nor politically accountable. The credibility and legitimacy of both the judiciary (and judicial review) and the Constitutional guarantee against excesses by any arm of the Government would be impaired should such a development occur. However the problems surface when there is attempt to apply the theory to practice. Judicial review, despite the grounds on which it is justified, ecessarily involves a process that is evaluative, with emphasis on examining the merits of a decision. When this is compounded by the fact that a conferral of discretionary powers are done so in language that often lacks clarity and is open-ended, it is not too remote to state that courts, in their attempt to evaluate the reasonableness of a decision, will have to embark upon the path of a value-laden judgment about whether there was a breach of the confines of the discret ionary power. This inherent problem within grounds of review is particularly exacerbated in the case of Wednesbury unreasonableness because, although the enacting statue would include the requirement of reasonableness, it will inconveniently leave out the definition of reasonableness, hence creating more room for an evaluative process by the courts. This then amounts to a process of pitting a contested decision against an ideal standard of reasonableness, a standard which has to be construed by the courts. It is then no surprise that the result is often an opaque and loose standard which tends to veer towards the substantive elements of a decision rather than the procedural elements. The fundamental problem of Wednesbury unreasonableness as a ground of judicial review is that the trigger for raising this ground is the disputed quality of the administrative decision. Hence what this amounts to is an intervention by the courts in lieu of the merits of the decision, hence blurring the distinction between legality and merit. When courts attempt to evaluate the legality of administrative action on the murky grounds of unreasonableness, they risk justifying a merits review as judicial review and hence risk an intervention based on their construction of unreasonableness and not based on the legality of the decision in question. Procedural Grounds of review: Bias Bias is a failure to have an open mind on the issues. Actual bias, a closed mind, may lead to other reviewable errors but exists as a separate ground of review. Bias as a ground of review also looks at the perceptions and a decision may be set aside for a perception of bias, whether there was any or not. The test is whether a fair minded lay observer would perceive a possibility of bias. This portion of the essay deals with judges continuing to act in a decision making process when they have an interest in the outcome of the case. A judge with a financial interest in a decision is not automatically barred from hearing the case and is only barred if the interest was such as to create a perception of bias [Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000)] The distinction between actual bias and an apprehension of bias is that for the latter there needs to be no issue of whether the judicial officer might or did in fact bring an impartial mind to the resolution of that case. All that is required is that he might or might have brought an impartial mind to the resolution of the case. The High re-defined the apprehension of bias principle in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) such that the governing principle now is that a judge is disqualified if a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to resolving the case at hand. The principle may also need to be modified in the case of some administrative decision makers, to recognize and accommodate the different legal framework within which administrative decisions are made. Indeed, in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia, the High Court made it clear that the application of the Ebner principles will depend on the circumstances of the case at hand. Judicial officers, by virtue of their public duty do not lose their rights as citizens to engage in a private life and participate in all that a private life necessarily entails. Therefore to assert that there will be conflicts of interest between the public duty and private life of judicial officers seems to be an otiose argument. Any argument that this conflict of interest could result in bias, hence forming a ground for review must then be contemplated with skepticism. Interest The prominence of financial diversity, prevalent interest in shareholding, necessity of investing in superannuation and its related equity funds all result in a significant number of judicial officers, like their counterparts in other professions to have an interest in publicly listed companies. These publicly listed companies are not only the dominant incumbents of their industries but also, as a result of their expansive service production, likely to be involved in litigation periodically. Therefore there is potential scope for litigants to argue that there should be judicial review of a decision made on the basis of an apprehension of bias because of the pecuniary interest of the judge in the case. However, the resolution of most cases involving large companies is unlikely to be significant in affecting the value of a shareholding. Hence shareholdings in large companies will not be disqualifying factors in most proceedings. The proportion of the shares held to the value of the company as an aggregate is likely to be insignificant such as to warrant an intervention on this account. Association There is no clear touchstone that can provide an easy method of identifying what might be a disqualifying association and this could provoke arguments that this ground of review is poorly defined and arbitrary. Obviously a judicial officer cannot preside in a case in which he or she is a party; or in which a close relative is party. On the other hand, the judicial and planning appeal systems would be unworkable if a member was disqualified simply because they knew a party, let alone a representative of a party. The High Court has stated that a reasonable apprehension of bias may exist where the presiding judge has a substantial personal relationship with a party to, or a person involved in, proceedings or a substantial personal relationship with a member of the family of that party or person. However what constitutes a substantial personal relationship may, in practice, be elusive. Much depends on the nature, duration and closeness of the relationship. The High Court decision in Bienstein v Bienstein, which established the general principle that a judge is not disqualified from hearing a matter simply because, when a barrister, he or she has appeared for a party in the past. The recent decision of the House of Lords in Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is illustrative that, in the case of an expert tribunal or court, a relationship with the agency whose decision was under review might not be a disqualifying factor. The House of Lords considered that a fair minded observer, who had considered the facts properly, would appreciate that professional detachment and the ability to exercise an independent judgment lay at the heart of such decisions. No-one is immune from a complaint of apprehended bias. Judges cannot be expected to be value-free. Conduct Sometimes the conduct of a judicial officer may be such that a reasonable person may apprehend that the matter might not be decided impartially. But this does not mean that a judicial officer cannot have an opinion about the general reliability of a witness who regularly appears before a court or tribunal; provided that the officer is open to persuasion and does not make comment indicating prejudgment. It must be stressed that the expression of tentative views, designed to elicit relevant submissions, does not constitute bias nor create a reasonable apprehension of bias. Indeed, this practice actually enhances procedural fairness by alerting the parties to the thoughts of the tribunal and providing them with an opportunity to persuade the tribunal to adopt a different course. Demands to disclose interests or associations When should a judicial officer respond to questions about their interests or associations? There are different schools of thought as to the appropriate practice to adopt when a judicial officer is asked about his or her interests or associations. My view is that, within reason, it is better to answer specific questions in relation to factual matters in order to put minds at rest; or, if minds are not put to rest, to require the parties to confront the potentially disqualifying interest or association and identify the logical connection this may have with a partial adjudication. However a judicial officer should not feel compelled to identify and disclose all possible interests and associations, direct and indirect, whether or not relevant to the case at hand. And there is certainly no obligation to answer questions about opinions, values or attitudes. Effect of non-disclosure of non-disqualifying interest What happens if a judicial officer does not disclose an interest or association which might have been disclosed as a matter of prudence (on the asis that it was potentially disqualifying), but, when revealed, was not ultimately found to be a disqualifying interest or association? In Ebner, the majority of the High Court thought it necessary to distinguish between considerations of prudence and requirements of law. The court considered that, as a matter of prudence and professional practice, judicial officers should disclose interests and associations if there is a serious possibility that they are potentially disqualifying. But it thought it was neither useful nor necessary to describe this practice in terms of rights or duties. Thus if a judicial officer does not disclose a non-disqualifying interest or association, his or her silence cannot reasonably support an inference of want of impartiality. Conclusion The High Court has emphasized that judicial officers should not be too ready to disqualify themselves when confronted with an insubstantial objection, lest that this will lead to forum shopping. But the same does not go to disclosure of potentially disqualifying interests or associations. Quite apart from any moral responsibility, recent decisions have shown the practical virtues of disclosure in circumstances of any doubt. But in determining any objection a court or tribunal should apply a method that requires there to be some logical connection between the alleged disqualifying matter and an inability to impartially determine the proceeding. How to cite Law Essay, Essays

Experiential Learning in Communities for Cultural Attitudes

Question: Discuss about theExperiential Learning in Communities for Cultural Attitudes. Answer: Intercultural communication is seen as communication existing between various groups or persons from different cultural and linguistic origins. For example, a university enrolls students from different cultural origins and hence they have great chances to acquire educational experiences such as competence together. Cultural competence is a central concept discussed in intercultural communication and it focuses on knowledge of various cultures, cultural attitudes, cultural awareness, and skills for cross-cultural associations (Grellier Goerke, 2010). Cultural competence closely relates to cultural diversity as it involves ethnicity or racial identity. However, the intercultural communication is dynamic and therefore individuals should access new resources which may guide them as they communicate with the aboriginal Australians. Intercultural communication is associated with various challenges such as meeting new persons. Meeting new persons is a challenge as people relate with others from various cultural backgrounds and they need to learn how to communicate with them to overcome the problem. A verbal language difference is a challenge as people may meet those who communicate in languages that they are not familiar (Jandt, 2017). Therefore, people should listen carefully and ensure they understand to avoid issues associated with colloquialisms, grammar, and ascents. Dress and nonverbal language is also a challenge as it focuses on understanding how other people look. Samovar, Porter, McDaniel Roy (2014) confirms that how people do their hair and make-up also matters. However, an individual must be open-minded to accommodate anyone regardless of dress and nonverbal language to overcome this challenge (House, 2014). Finally, understanding time is also important. To summarize, people should learn the inclusiv e language and learn to exercise patience as they communicate with people from other cultural backgrounds. This step ensures that there is understanding among people hence the challenge of unique and complex relations are addressed. Reflection After analyzing this article Intercultural communication, I think it is educative as people will learn how to relate to new people from different cultural backgrounds. From my experience, I have had unique and complex relations with people from different cultural backgrounds. Hence I believe that at some point, communications can go wrong. Therefore, this issue of intercultural communication should be handled with care as people need to observe respect and patience. Based on the reading, I have applied the themes when learning together with others in my mentoring partnership through various ways. For instance, I know the value of inclusive language which is English and I use it to communicate effectively. I try not to marginalize and I communicate with all people in the mentoring partnership. I do not label people whom we do not share stereotypes to avoid offending them. Moreover, I present a sophisticated and accurate view using the inclusive language when communicating with other p eople. Also, I have learned it is important to avoid using words like them and us in communications. I try to develop intercultural competencies for people in the mentoring partnership to ensure that understanding is achieved as language is connected to thoughts. Finally, the reading has helped me learn to overcome challenges associated with the intercultural communication. References Grellier, J., Goerke, V. (2010). Intercultural Communication. Communication Skills Toolkit: Unlocking the Secrets of Tertiary Success (pp. 196-207). South Melbourne: Cengage Learning. House, J. (2014). Moving across languages and cultures in translation as intercultural communication. InTranslational action and intercultural communication(pp. 14-46). Routledge. Jandt, F. E. (2017).An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global community. Sage Publications. Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., McDaniel, E. R., Roy, C. S. (2014).Intercultural communication: A reader. Cengage Learning.