Family Violence: Legal & Social Perspectives on Child Battery
Jerri is 13 years old. She lives with her mother, Jean, and her stepfather, Jimmie. Since school started this year, Jerri has been caught three times sneaking out of the house late at night to be with her friends. She maintains that nothing illegal or illicit occurs; she and her friends just "hang" in a wooded, vacant lot in the neighborhood. Her parents, of course, worry that illegal drugs or sexual activity or other kinds of behavior improper for a 13-year-old may be involved. The first time that she was caught, Jerri's parents canceled a weekend trip that they had previously told Jerri she could take with a friend. The second time, she was grounded for a week. The third time, she was grounded for a month, and her allowance was withheld. On January 30, a school night -- only a week after her month-long detention had ended -- Jimmie caught Jerri crawling through a window into a hallway that leads to her bedroom. Jerri tried to crawl back out the window, threatening to run away and escape from "this life of tyranny." By this time, Jean and the younger children were watching. Exasperated that previous attempts at punishment had failed and that Jerri was only becoming more defiant and belligerent, Jimmie grabbed her, pulled her back into the window and struck her in the face. He says that, as he slapped her, she turned her head, and his ring caught on her pierced earring, which was torn from her earlobe. Jerri maintains that Jimmie deliberately ripped the ring out of her ear. Jerri runs to the phone, yelling, "Child abuse. I'll get you. Who do you think you are? You're not my real father anyway." She calls 911. Jerri wants the police to arrest Jimmie on a charge of Battery, which, in the State of Confusion, is defined as "any offensive touching inflicted willfully or unreasonably which causes pain or injury to the victim." Jimmie wants Jerri taken to court as a Person In Need of Supervision.
In a paper of approximately 2,400 words, respond to these questions. If you are the police officer called to the scene, are you going to charge Jimmie with Battery? Is he guilty of abusing Jerri? If you are a psychologist asked by the Family Court to evaluate the situation, are you going to recommend that Jerri be removed from the home because her parents are unable to supervise her? During your sessions with Jerri, she recalls for the first time abuse by her older brother before the age of 5. Do you give this credence? Should it be admissible in court?
You do not need to research the law of any state or use any sources other than the assigned text. You may use independent, academic resources, but you will not receive credit for your paper if you use only internet resources. Show that you have read and understood the material assigned.
Child Battery
Student’s Name
Institutional Name
Child Battery
Child battery or child abuse remains among the most contested debates in contemporary society’s social and legal circles, considering the lack of clarity in the subject. In most states presently, punishment for child battery charges can be as varied as its defenses. Furthermore, most social and legal systems have been rendered reliant on the severity of the injuries inflicted to warrant specific punishments. Still, debates arise as to what amounts to a serious injury. In this paper, emphasis is put on Jerri’s case study with an attempt made at unearthing the legal, social, and psychological bases for the arrest of the accused. An insightful understanding of Jerri’s case should create a platform for addressing child battery, especially based on the intent to warrant arrest, the nature of the injury, and the possible defense for the accused.
Charging Jimmie with Battery
The first stage in any proper law enforcement platform constitutes charging the accused person within the required limits. The law enforcement officer in charge should have a reason beyond any doubt to arrest an individual. In other jurisdictions, the arrest can be undertaken to allow for more investigation into the matter. The accused can be incarcerated or released upon verification of all the facts surrounding the case. The case of Jerri is a cause for a dilemma, considering the roles that both the victim and the accused played before the abuse incident.
There are specific aspects to explore before deciding on whether Jimmie should be charged with battery or not in the case. The first aspect to consider is whether the incident was conducted as an act of discipline or abuse (Wallace, Roberson, & Globokar, 2019). Most legal and social jurisdictions do not manifest a definitive boundary between discipline and abuse. For instance, in most states and cultures in the US, spanking is considered legal and an act of discipline. However, some families believe that any undue physical act against a child should be considered abuse. There are no specific grounds for when a parent can be considered a disciplinarian or an abusive individual. However, states rely on child abuse statutes to differentiate between discipline and battery. On this ground, the arresting officer will listen to both sides of the story to determine if Jerri crossed the line and abused the child. Because Jimmie hit Jerri in an unconventional place (the face), the officer can arrest Jimmie and charge him with battery. However, most states do not usurp a parent’s right to use corporal punishment to discipline their children, including hitting on the face. However, the parent should show a good reason as to why he/she hit the child. The universal understanding of reasonable discipline would deter the officer from charging Jimmie.
The second question that the officer needs to answer is whether Jimmie can develop a reasonable disciplinary defense to avoid the charge. In most legal jurisdictions within the US, some grounds amount to reasonable discipline defense. Primarily, the defendant must be a parent. In this case, Jimmie is a parent and has the legal obligation not to subject the minors to harm either by omission or commission. Additionally, Jimmie can describe the precedent set before the incident. Jerri has developed defiance to any measures that the parents undertake to deter her behaviors. The incident happens after she has been punished for the same course on three other occasions previously. In any rational, emotional understanding, one would believe that Jimmie was rightful to hit Jerri.
The second factor that the officer should consider before charging Jimmie is intent. The defendant could use intent as a defense to some of the abuse cases. That is, it is appropriate to prove that the accused did not hit the child to harm her. In most social and legal jurisdictions, the intent is a pre-planned behavior to cause a serious injury. In this case, it is not indicated that Jimmie had planned to injure Jerri. It is noted that Jerri was just completing her punishment for a similar offense. Naturally, a parent would not expect a repeat almost immediately. The reactions by Jimmie can be classified as emotional but within the limits of reflex reactions. Further, it is arguable that Jerri emotionally triggered Jimmie’s reaction when she behaved exactly how she had been deterred. Intent can also be proved from a history of abuse. Jimmie has not hit Jerri before in their encounters. Additionally, he (Jimmie) hit the child only once. Hitting an individual repeatedly, thereby causing injuries, is proof of intent. There is nothing that Jimmie did to Jerri to prove that he was intentionally hitting the child to harm her.
The other factor to consider before charging Jimmie is the reaction of the complainant. Jerri behaved as though she wanted to frame Jimmie for the abuse. Jerri’s behavior fits within the limits of Munchausen syndrome. Individuals with Munchausen syndrome manifest a psychological disorder in which they pretend to be injured or deliberately produce illness symptoms to suit their arguments (Wallace et al., 2019). The primary intention of the syndrome is to assume the sick role so that they become the center for attention and that other individuals care for them. The Munchausen syndrome is a tool for emotional manipulation and could lead to charges of abuse on Jimmie if the officer is not keen enough to unearth the intentions. The statement “as he slapped her, she turned her head, and his ring caught on her pierced earring, which was torn from her earlobe” proves that Jerri was intentionally framing Jimmie for the crime. Further, while Jerri maintains that Jimmie deliberately ripped the ring from her ear, the evidence proves otherwise. That is, she started yelling even at the presence of other witnesses instead of calling for their help besides uttering a statement like “I will get you,” which is a show of the intent to accuse someone wrongly. The officer should not charge Jimmie with child abuse based on the possibility that Jerri could be suffering from Munchausen syndrome.
Ulti...