After looking over them and watching the video at the link below, do you think you have a maximalist or minimalist position on child victimization? How do the readings and/or video impact your position? On a final note, see the story link below the video link. About a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that courts do not have to require alleged child abuse victims to testify in order to convict someone. The history of this kind of issue is interesting - see links below on Maryland v. Craig (1990) and an Iowa Supreme Court ruling. With what you have studied so far in mind, what do you make of all this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8vZxDa2KPM
Maryland v. Craig :: 497 U.S. 836 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Interpreting Iowa Supreme Court ruling on children's testimony in abuse cases - Radio Iowa
Gendered and Attributions of Blame and Failure to Protect in Child Welfare Responses to Sexual Abuse: A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis By Corry Azzopardi
The idea of requiring prisoners to pay for their food, board, medical care, and other services is controversial. Explore the arguments for and against this practice. Should prisoners be financially responsible for their incarceration costs, considering the potential for reducing the burden on taxpayers? Or does this approach further penalize individuals who are already marginalized and possibly unable to afford these costs? Discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each perspective, including the impact on prisoners' rehabilitation, their families, and the overall goals of the correctional system.
Sample Answer
Based on the materials provided, my position on child victimization aligns strongly with the maximalist view.
A maximalist position asserts that child maltreatment is a widespread, severe, and devastating problem that demands comprehensive, aggressive intervention and broad definitions of harm.
Impact of Video and Readings on Position
The Maximalist View Supported by the Video
The video, "Through Our Eyes: Children, Violence, and Trauma—Introduction" [00:51], is a powerful argument for the maximalist perspective. It emphasizes that violence and trauma are not isolated events but have staggering, long-term costs [06:08], leading to profound and lasting harm:
Profound Psychological Harm: Trauma is described as an event that takes away safety and creates a sense of helplessness [00:51]. Victims are at a much higher risk for developing depression and anxiety disorders [05:32].
Neurological and Biological Change: The video explains that trauma is not just emotional but literally changes the brain [02:44], wiring it to expect danger, and that cumulative violence can change the DNA [03:51]. This highlights the deep, physical nature of the injury.
Widespread Problem: Testimonies indicate the problem is not rare, noting that sexual abuse "exists in the neighborhood, exists unfortunately at our schools, at our churches, at our homes everywhere" [04:38].
The Maximalist View Supported by the Reading
The title of the academic article, "Gendered and Attributions of Blame and Failure to Protect in Child Welfare Responses to Sexual Abuse: A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis," also supports a maximalist view. A critical analysis of child welfare responses to sexual abuse and failure to protect suggests a serious systemic problem. By focusing on the failings of the system and the biases (gendered blame) in its response, it underscores the need for greater scrutiny, recognition, and protection for child victims.
Judicial Rulings on Child Testimony
The shift in jurisprudence—represented by the ruling you noted and precedents like Maryland v. Craig (1990)—which allows courts to use alternatives to face-to-face testimony for child victims, is a necessary and logical extension of the maximalist, trauma-informed perspective.
Maryland v. Craig (1990): The Supreme Court upheld a Maryland procedure allowing a child witness in a sexual abuse case to testify via one-way closed-circuit television.
Modern Rulings: Later rulings, including the one you referenced and the Iowa Supreme Court decision, further affirm the use of reliable, out-of-court statements or non-confrontational testimony methods.
Maximalist Viewpoint on the Rulings
With a maximalist view, these rulings are essential because:
Preventing Re-traumatization: The video highlights that for a child, abuse is a "big secret that's always on your back" [00:20]. Forcing a child to confront their abuser in a formal courtroom setting constitutes secondary victimization and re-traumatization. A trauma-informed system, as advocated by the video, must adopt procedures that do not inflict further harm [07:09].
Prioritizing Truth and Well-being: The legal system is balancing the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation against the state's paramount interest in protecting the psychological well-being of the child. The trauma-informed approach recognizes that the overwhelming stress of confrontation could actually impede the child's ability to communicate honestly and effectively, thereby undermining the search for truth.
Acknowledging Vulnerability: These rulings legally recognize the unique vulnerability of child victims and the severe psychological impact of abuse, which is fully consistent with the video's portrayal of trauma as an event that makes a child "fearful" and unable to "live your normal life" [01:52].
Financial Responsibility for Incarceration Costs
The debate over requiring prisoners to pay for their incarceration costs (often called "pay-to-stay" or "cost-of-confinement fees") involves complex arguments about fiscal policy, social justice, and correctional philosophy.