The Abuse against Children at Don Dale - Assignment Example

5. The abuse against children at Don Dale reflects a punitive culture in Australia which is not limited to Don Dale (Fitzgibbon). Critically discuss The resurfacing of the child abuse at Don Dale caused a public outcry. The facility is expected to help abused children receive care. However, according to the video footage released, a warden is seen pinning a young boy on the concrete wall by holding his neck. The guards push the boy face against the bare mattress form while the other guard was stripping the boy. The guards then left the cell quickly. The boy is left alone having no one to console him (O'Leary, 2016). The detention centre at Don Dale was also exposed by the ABC Four Corners concerning child abuse. According to one interviewee called Lawrence John if a parent mistreats his or her child, the authorities’ take over the protection and care for the child. Ideally, child development requires an environment free of any psychological and depression. Equally, the mistreatment of children at the Queensland youth detention facility indicates the extreme abuse by the state. Whenever a parent harms a child a report is launched and the state has the power to remove the child from the family. This way parent care is no longer required as the state cares for the welfare and upbringing of the child. The arguments follow the need to develop responsible citizens in future (Appleby & Reilly, n.d.). Given the bad upbringing, the state desires to prevent the breeding of abusive citizens. Ideally, the interest is to break the cycle of violence against children by the parents. This is difficult to understand the reason behind the extreme abuse of children at detention facilities given the state have the monitoring and reports equipment. Australia has reported considerably highly cases of complainants to prepare children in detention. According to NT (Northern Territory) referring children as state responsibility follows the duty of care that is expected from the parent. However, the harm caused to children is detrimental as the physical and emotional wellbeing is affected (Loveland, 2018). Reevaluation of the reports as per the ABC expose is significant. Ideally, the international standard is often set on the kind of force to be used against children in detention the international standards recommend the isolation and the kind of action that would result in juvenile detention. The engagement of the state in protecting the detained children follows the increased cases of children detainees that were subjected to a harsh environment (Welstead & Edwards, 2013). Findings reveal that the detain centers meant for the youth did not meet the required standards to be used as a rehabilitation centre. This way, the condition paved way for the potential abuse of the children. The vacuum made the children vulnerable and was depicted noting what was happening behind the closed cells. Further, their wellbeing and health were in jeopardy hence inadequate protection. Don Dale incident did not follow the Australian guideline. Children suffered punishment owing to the deplorable conditions they were subjected. The intention of the management could be seen to follow the punitive culture of restoring discipline among the detainee (O'Leary, 2016). However, the operations breach the human rights of any detainee. Every detainee has the right to a clean and healthy environment regardless of the crime committed. Unhygienic conditions caused children to risk being sick. Equally, the provision of such a porous environment puts the state of the centre at risks as their working condition is affected by the lack of responsibility by the management (Loveland, 2018). Detaining centers are set to support the rehabilitation process. The context of Australian detaining centers displays how there is no possibility of a functioning justice system. The exposure captures the same boy five years later being stripped on a chair by for guards and his faced hooded. It is beyond belief to see a similar scenario happening for the second time with no prosecution or action taken against the culprit. Viewers were shocked all over Australia. Whatever was happening tot eh boy was not justified and contravened the human rights. The story told cannot in any way sanitized via contextualization. Interestingly, the government sets an inquiry on the exposure. Royal commissions investigated the abuse of the boy at the children detention centre. The revelation only points out those similar instances could be taking place at the facility without the knowledge of the state. The abuse of the children that the citizens expected to be looked after is subjected to cruelty. The culture is not acceptable even if the children committed huge crimes (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017). Inquiry into the cases of child abuse at the detention centre revealed further critic on the way the government was working too hasty. The appointment of female Supreme Court judge who had worked as the judge for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders was helpful since she had experience and was fit for the job (Loveland, 2018). The inquiry was to establish if the children were accorded their rights and the sanitization of the operation. The commission investigated the “filings in the child protection” and the effectiveness of the systems put in place. The concern was to see the detainee receiving proper protection and treatment within the northern territory (Welstead & Edwards, 2013). Presence of a functioning justice system put Australia in doubt. The rolling camera captures images that were displaying inhumane treatment of the children. The Australia shame displayed on television showed how the indigenous children detainee was abused and the disclosure of the footage facilitated the commissions in investigating the incidences. Another incident of six children housed at the Behavioral Management Unit (‘the BMU’) was devastated (Appleby & Reilly, n.d.). One of the detained children escaped from the confinement and demanded to be told on the day he would leave the BMU. The scuffle caused by the child saw the guards respond by using gas bursts that affected all the six boys. Don Dale solitary confinement indicates the extreme treatment of the boys that led to the development of resistance (Welstead & Edwards, 2013). The attitude of the state is demeaning on the way it handles the offending youth. This follows the expectation of the public in instilling behavioral correction. However, the state does its action excessive. The punitive culture displayed by the detention officers of Don Dale shows unhealthy attachment concerning detention cases (Appleby & Reilly, n.d.). The citizens tend to leave the responsibility to the state hence locked out of the things that actually happen at the correctional centers. This does not absolve the people from showing their responsible and depicting institutional culture used in the prison. The Commission established that Trevor Hansen used a technique that made the detainees feel uncomfortable, for example, the extended pressure on cloth that touches genital areas yet the staff was restricted from accessing these parts. This was contravening section 153 (2) of the YJC (Youth Justice Act) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017). According to Welstead and Edwards, (2013) solitary confinement is psychologically painful. One is cut off from the world and left to face trauma and depression. Those put on solitary confinement is at risk of facing long-term emotional replication. The application when done to children yields devastating results considering the immature mind of a child. In most cases, it led to other health defects like anxiety, insomnia, Psychosis and suicidal ideation among other effects. The Human standard youth detention of Australia argues that the Don Dale facility violated the rights of the children. It is expected that the right procured was used when correcting the children at the facility instead of using torture. Equally Degrading Treatment or Punishment (‘CAT’), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) and the Convention Against Torture in which Australia is a party express relevant rights of children while in a juvenile detention. The state is expected to take punitive measures that are acceptable by the various human right bodies that advocate for the welfare and rights of children (O'Leary, 2016). Conclusively, the children mistreatment at the Don Dale was condemned globally. The essence of Australia following a different process in correcting behavior was based on the punitive culture. However, the excess force and torture contravened the rights of the children. Permissible use of restraining should be exercised. Molding better behavior requires using accepted ways of correcting and directing. As expressed in the Youth Justice Act (NT), the superintendent is expected to be accountable for the physiological, physical and emotional welfare of all detainees. Additionally, it is paramount to allow the development of the social aspect of the detainees to improve their welfare. References Appleby, G., & Reilly, A. (n.d.). Taking Responsibility for Don Dale. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 8(27). Commonwealth of Australia. (2017). Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. Loveland, I. (2018). 22. Human Rights VI: Governmental Powers of Arrest and Detention. Law Trove. doi:10.1093/he/9780198804680.003.0022 O'Leary, J. (2016). Protecting Children from Harm in Juvenile Detention. Alternative Law Journal, 41(4), 239-243. doi:10.1177/1037969x1604100405 Welstead, M., & Edwards, S. (2013). 15. Protecting children from ‘significant harm’: constructing the law. Family Law, 483-522. doi:10.1093/he/9780199664207.003.3526 Read More