Should Abusive Parents Be Punished or Treated - Research Paper Example

 Should Abusive Parents Be Punished or Treated? Introduction Society has an idealistic perception of parenthood. Society firmly believes that every parent is a responsible, caring, and affectionate individual who would do everything for their children. However, the commonness of child abuse disproves this belief. For instance, the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information reported that in 2002 there were roughly 1,400 cases of child maltreatment deaths in the U.S., even though that figure is almost certainly inaccurate because cases of child abuse are usually not reported (Collins, 2006, 808). Furthermore, parents may abuse their children due to ignorance or due to personality attributes or experiences that make them incapable of performing the extremely challenging task of parenting. Parenting has usually been treated as a private issue in the United States, and the government has been hesitant to meddle with the rights of parents to care for or raise their children in their own way. Even though a number of laws have been implemented since the 1960s forbidding extreme parental cruelty against children, there is still, in reality, tremendous lenience for violence against children (Westman, 2007). These aggressive actions may not be viewed as abusive by some, but is regarded abuse by many professionals. Many states do not forbid parents from hitting their children. Yet, most states have laws that identify child abuse. The federal government has ratified the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which establishes rules that the states should integrate into their child abuse laws (Wallace & Roberson, 2010). CAPTA mandates the designation of child abuse to add (Hirschy, Thompson, & Wilkinson, 2010, 2): “Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm”. In a research on cases of absence of supervision, many involved parents who entrusted their children to an incompetent guardian or caregiver or parents who totally abandoned their children. In 40% of the cases examined, dependable parents admitted “they believed there was nothing wrong with what had happened” (Collins, 2006, 808). Moreover, the caseworkers who were instructed to evaluate the case documents thoroughly reported “that in more than half the cases… the supervision problem was due to a lack of knowledge or poor judgment about the abilities or needs of children of a given age” (Collins, 2006, 808). Abusive Parents Must Be Punished Today, if a child is abused by a parent, there is no assurance that the child will be separated and given any form of protection from the maltreating parent. In fact, the child is more likely to be separated from his/her parents because of poverty than maltreatment. It is also less likely that the abusive parent will be apprehended, except if the child dies. Rather, the parent will more probably go through counseling or therapy (Reece, 2003). The entire practice would be pathetically outrageous. While therapy and counseling may sooner or later form a partial remedy to the psychological disorder that led the parent to maltreat his/her child, it is still a fact that a child has been harmed, and the attacker should be prosecuted under the law. Even though the abusive parent must be provided complete legal protections, s/he must understand that child abuse is unlawful and will be legally apprehended. So the questions are, at what age does beating a person, with the intention of inflicting physical injury, become a criminal act punishable by law? Why a child cannot do the same? When should the child be removed from the responsibility of semi-legal protective services and be afforded the absolute protection of the law? Most probably, an individual aged twenty-one and above could legally file a complaint against a parent for abuse. Actually, the child should not have to file a complaint. Instead, a parent should be automatically arrested if there is proof of child abuse (Reece, 2003). Abusing a child, like other forms of physical maltreatment, is not an act that should be dealt with by the child welfare institutions. Child abuse is not a psychological problem or a medical condition necessitating professional therapeutic care and intervention. Primarily, child abuse is a crime, requiring forceful control, and is, for that reason, a law enforcement responsibility. However, this does not imply that the abusive parent should not be treated or counseled. Instead, it implies that the child abuse has first to be apprehended as a crime and afterward, when necessary, to administer therapy to the abusive parent (Westman, 2007). There are major advantages to implementing this approach, besides greater protection it will give to child. Above all, reconstructing child abuse as a crime would spell out the responsibility of all the involved—parent, law enforcement, social worker, and the legal system. Nowadays, child abuse charges are dealt with in a changing and vague jurisdiction where practically nobody is apprehended unless a child is seriously and permanently damaged or dies; where the law adjusts to suit bureaucratic policies and practices, and where the rights of the defendant may not consistently be valid; and where the allegation of child abuse is ambiguously defined (Westman, 2007). With child abuse classified as a crime, law enforcement would have definite power and obligation to act with certainty, while currently, because of doubt, usually they do not. Any accusation would be strongly affirmed, and the parent guaranteed appropriate protection. Legal processes and protections would be clarified and carried out. The court, finally separated from child protective service organizations, would be capable of making a fair and autonomous resolution (Reece, 2003). Moreover, with abuse clearly identified, and the responsibilities of the parties established, the capacity to deter child maltreatment and give legal protection for maltreated children would improve (Hirschy et al., 2010). Even a resentful parent, being aware that s/he is violating the law and should be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted, may hesitate to harm his/her child, who may afterward be seen and reported to the authorities by a concerned individual. Ultimately, child welfare social workers would be able to focus on the obligations for which they are most experienced and skilled, that is, delivery of needed and appropriate services to vulnerable families. Child welfare social workers are not law enforcers, and they are not tasked to do so. If they do so, it is only because the responsibility has been assigned to them to look into a series of child abuse reports (Reece, 2003). They do not have the power, the skill, and possibly the penchant to efficiently investigate criminal acts. Because child abuse is a crime, the task of investigating and prosecuting it should be handed over to the police, who have the education and resources to effectively take action. Even though with professional support and effort, some parents are able to triumph over the difficulties that pushed them to maltreat their children, like emotional problem or alcoholism, social work scholar Richard Gelles claimed that there are parents who are basically ‘untreatable’. Gelles approximated that at least 10 percent of abusive parents are resistant to treatment who will refuse to modify their behavior and who also possess psychological and social characteristics that make them untreatable (Reece, 2003, 310). Gelles stated, “Caretakers who do not recognize or admit to the harm they have inflicted on their children, by acts of either omission or commission, are not going to respond to an action-oriented intervention such as intensive family preservation, a parenting class, additional resources, or even psychotherapy” (Reece, 2003, 310). He further argued that authorities should consider the needs of maltreated children (Clark, Clark, & Adamec, 2007, 11): “Decisions about treatment of intervention should be made with a child’s sense of time and a child’s need for permanence as the main criteria for choice of intervention. For treatment-resistant families, the intervention of choice would be to terminate parental rights and seek a permanent placement for the child or children.” The strongest argument against punishment of abusive parents is that it is needless because parents already have enough motivation to protect their children from any harm and hence punishment can have no further preventative impact. Such motivation is believed to be twofold: first, the responsibility and affection that parents have for their children will motivate them to act dutifully, and second, society’s expectations of what defines ‘good parenting’ will strongly encourage proper parenting behavior (Wallace & Roberson, 2010). However, there are a number of weaknesses inherent in this argument. Primarily, this argument does not take into consideration the fact that society enforce punishment because the wrongdoer deserves it, and not only to advance other objectives like prevention. And basically, the principles behind this argument are largely flawed. With regard to personality variables, social researchers have observed common attributes of abusive parents. One scholar has observed that a number of abusive parents may have problems meeting the needs and demands of their children. According to some scholars, abusive parents are usually deficient in psychological ability and have a tendency to be self-centred, reckless, and incapable of organizing their lives to fulfill their family’s needs (Wallace & Roberson, 2010). These studies hence show that society’s confidence in the ties of family love to safeguard children is largely uncertain. There are certainly numerous parents who lose their children because of abusive behavior or negligence. Several scholars challenge the assumption that punishment inflicts needless misery not just on an abusive parent, but also on his/her family. Moreover, there is the more widespread disapproval concerning punishment for negligent parents in general (Hirschy et al., 2010). The question of whether abuse or negligence is a sufficient or valid justification for criminal accountability is extremely contentious. But so long as abuse or negligence persists to be a recognized justification for enforcing criminal accountability, the issue of family ties between the abused child and the abusive parent should not influence our judgment of whether to punish the offender or not. Why is society mostly hesitant to punish abusive or negligent parents? One explanation is that we continue to view violation of children’s rights as a familial issue where in the government must intercede halfheartedly, and only when completely called for. This common reluctance to get involved in family matters, even to safeguard children, is a profoundly embedded historical practice in the United States. Even though it is definite that public awareness of and concern for child abuse is growing, there is still much to be done resolve this chronic problem. Even though intervention is obviously needed, we continue to see the parent’s behavior as some kind of abnormality or as a symptom of psychological disorder (Westman, 2007). In fact, there is an interesting difference at this point between society’s attitude toward offenses perpetrated against women and offenses perpetrated against children. Elizabeth Pleck perfectly explained this (Collins, 2006, 809): While reformers against child abuse opposed criminal sanctions against perpetrators, reformers against wife abuse and marital rape favored them and tied to pressure the police and courts to respond adequately to the complaints of women victims. The medical and social work professionals who dominated child abuse reform defined child battering as a psychological illness of the parents requiring social services and psychological treatment. The feminist activists and lawyers who led the campaign against wife beating and marital rape rooted the problem in the inequality of women and the lack of proper law enforcement. The assumption that child abuse and neglect is caused by some sort of psychological disorder, and should not be treated as a criminal act, is a major dilemma. Being a parent is undoubtedly one of the hardest, most challenging, unending responsibilities that an adult can take on. In fact, every parent has experienced nerve-racking moments where in a sudden loss of attention have led to a child getting lost in a park or fiddling with toxic substances in the house. Even in a time where society implements punishment of careless parents, this form of simple carelessness must not lead to involvement by the criminal justice system. However, punishment is completely called for when serious negligence or abuse is involved. Punishment is an essential instrument for safeguarding children due to the very real effect it can have in enhancing their safety; it can contribute to the development of societal standards concerning what makes up correct parenting. Vehicle safety is a usual case in point of changing community standards that have resulted in improved security of children and a decrease in the frequency of child deaths (Collins, 2006). Punishment can serve a major function in reconstructing these standards because society’s idea of what action is considered abusive or neglectful is influenced by the steps carried out by the criminal justice system (Westman, 2007). As punishments and the consequent public concern starts to heighten, members of the community usually acquire better awareness of safety standards and start to change their behavior to conform to those standards. Conclusions This essay demonstrates that the argument for punishing abusive or negligent parent is controversial and contentious. We clearly have great consideration and compassion for a parent who has endured the unthinkable death of a child, and it is completely proper to take into account that sympathy into a punishment decision. However, we should have the utmost sympathy for the young children, who are absolutely helpless and unable to look after themselves. Punishing a parent who has severely abused or abandoned his/her child is one vital mechanism that can both result in the integration of stricter standards or legislation to safeguard children and alter our predisposition to excuse abusive parents. The protection of children should be a central principle of both family law and criminal law. Abusive or negligent parents should be punished. They are not abusive or negligent once, they are abusive or negligent repeatedly or occasionally. If a parent is abusive on one occasion, s/he will be abusive again. That is certainly risky because that aggressive behavior can result in death. References Clark, R., Clark, J.F., & Adamec, C. (2007). The Encyclopedia of Child Abuse. New York: Infobase Publishing. Collins, J. (2006). Crime and Parenthood: The Uneasy Case for Prosecuting Negligent Parents. Northwestern University Law Review, 100(2), 807+ Hirschy, S., Thompson, S., & Wilkinson, E. (2010). Protecting Our Children: Understanding and Preventing Abuse and Neglect in Early Childhood. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Reece, R. (2003). Treatment of Child Abuse: Common Ground for Mental Health, Medical, and Legal Practitioners. Baltimore, Maryland: JHU Press. Wallace, H. & Roberson, C. (2010). Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives. New York: Allyn & Bacon Incorporated. Westman, J. (2007). Licensing Parents: Can We Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect? Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Read More