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. Be sure to include examples from the textbook in your answer.
The contrasting minimalist position historically argued that child victimization was rare and often overstated, and that aggressive investigation risked creating more harm than good. The current evidence-based discourse, as presented in the video, moves strongly away from this view.
The Supreme Court Ruling: Maryland v. Craig (1990)
The issue of courts allowing child abuse victims to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) instead of requiring face-to-face confrontation, as upheld in Maryland v. Craig (1990) and reflected in the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, is highly significant.
The Constitutional Tension: This ruling pits the Sixth Amendment right of the accused—the right to confront one's accuser face-to-face—against the compelling state interest in protecting child victims from further psychological trauma.
What I Make of It: Given the maximalist perspective and the video's powerful portrayal of complex trauma, these rulings represent a necessary, trauma-informed compromise in the justice system.
Maximalist Justification: The video establishes that exposure to violence triggers the "fight, flight, freeze center" [02:44] and that reliving the trauma can lead to psychological "implosion" [06:21]. Forcing a child victim to testify in front of their alleged abuser risks re-traumatization and may render the testimony useless or unavailable. The ruling acknowledges that the psychological harm of confrontation outweighs the strict procedural interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, provided the testimony is given under circumstances that preserve the integrity of the fact-finding process (e.g., cross-examination is still allowed).
Feminist Critical Discourse: As implied by the reference to Azzopardi's work, the historical pressure to protect the accused through confrontation often silenced victims, particularly children and women. The Supreme Court's decision recognizes the victim's agency and vulnerability, ensuring that justice can be achieved without imposing a choice between their safety and the defendant's conviction.
Sample Answer
This query has two distinct parts: one addressing positions on child victimization and the other discussing the financial responsibility of prisoners for their incarceration costs.
1. Position on Child Victimization and Legal Issues
Based on the nature of the inquiry and the provided video, my position tends to align with the maximalist position on child victimization.
Maximalist Position on Child Victimization
The maximalist position views child abuse as a pervasive, catastrophic epidemic that is rapidly escalating and causes devastating, permanent harm to victims and society.
Impact of Readings/Video: The provided video, "Through Our Eyes: Children, Violence, and Trauma—Introduction," strongly supports the maximalist view. It focuses on the catastrophic, long-term effects of trauma on children, emphasizing that violence is often cumulative (complex trauma) [03:33] and literally changes the brain and DNA [02:44], [03:58]. The personal stories highlight the overwhelming nature of the violence experienced (murder, physical beating, sexual abuse [00:03], [02:15], [04:06]) and the profound consequences (suicide attempts [06:34], isolation, difficulty establishing trust [05:22]). The video calls for a trauma-informed system and early intervention [07:09], which reflects the maximalist belief that the crisis requires a sweeping societal response.