Part one of a research paper.
Child abuse has been a problem since there first existed children to abuse. More than any other group in society, children are time and time again abused in a variety of ways: physical, sexual, and emotional. Over and over throughout history, children are commonly neglected to the point of death for being physically or mentally inadequate, brutally beaten in the name of discipline, raped and then blamed for it, constantly told they are worthless burdens, and much more.
Children are the natural target for abuse, whether the abuse is for the gratification of the adult or an outburst of his anger. They are small, fragile, easy to terrorize, use, and keep silent. A child can't fight back - more importantly, a child can be taught he shouldn't fight back, that the abuse he suffers is justified by his own "bad" behavior. Often children are seen as objects - both metaphorically and legally - not truly with feeling or of worth, not really human until they are considered adult, and frequently by then, it's too late to change what they were taught all their childhood, and they go on to be abused again and again during their lifetime, and/or to abuse others.
However, not only abusers have existed for eons - protectors have, too. For instance, over six thousand years ago there was already a patron goddess specifically for orphaned children, who frequently suffered from serious neglect and abuse as they struggled to survive without their parents. Records of homes for orphaned and abandoned children date back thousands of years as well.
Unfortunately though, government authorities have only begun taking a serious look at the issue of child abuse in the past few decades. In virtually every society, child abuse was considered normal and routine, children had few or no rights, and only the parents were seen as having the right to choose how to raise and discipline their child. Even if a case of serious abuse surfaced, authorities would often turn a blind eye, not wanting to intervene in what they saw as a "private family affair." Even now, when people are finally beginning to realize how incredibly harmful and dehabilitating child abuse is, many forms of abuse are still commonly accepted and inflicted.
Another important aspect of child abuse that has also been realized, at least partially, in the last few decades, is the link between child abuse and the later crime life of the victim. In the past this was evidently unclear to the authorities - children who committed crimes were typically treated just as harshly as adults. The motive behind the crime and the situation of the criminal him/herself, were factors rarely considered. A child could be maimed or even executed for a crime like stealing bread to keep herself from starving. A child who committed crime was simply seen as "bad" - it didn't matter what in her life had led her to that point or even if she was old enough to comprehend her crime.
This did not begin to change until the sixteenth century. In England, the use of chancery courts led to the concept of the King or the court itself acting in parens patriae - acting as the "father" of the child involved, and thus ruling according to what would be the child's best interest. Although this system was originally used for orphaned, abandoned, and neglected/abused children, not child criminals, it later expanded into what would become the juvenile delinquency system - but this system was not truly realized until the late nineteenth century.
Despite this, the link between child abuse and the victims' crime life is clearly visible in history. Children who were orphaned, abandoned, and neglected were frequently also those who engaged in petty crime in their struggle to survive on their own, and more serious crime if they survived into adulthood. Parents who beat their children had usually suffered such beatings themselves when they were young. Others remain victims all their life and are swept into crime by others.
I believe that child abuse is the single most important cause of juvenile delinquency and adult crime. Trauma in childhood can actually change the way the victim's brain functions, the connections the neurons make - the brain of an abused person simply does not work the same way as that of a non-abused person. In my research, I've discovered that child abuse is extraordinarily common - studies show that even in "civilized", modern cultures, the majority of people have experienced some type of abuse in their childhood, and when I looked at studies specifically of juvenile delinquents, the percentage was even higher.
Unfortunately, because it is such a controversial subject, because adults are those in power, and because their victims so often stay silent, this link has not been adequately explored, and many people remain blind to the abuse going on around them, and ignorant to its traumatizing effects.
In this study, I will be exploring the subject of child abuse and juvenile delinquency in two different countries, one from the West and one from the East - the USA and Japan. I decided to look at, and compare, two drastically different countries in order to understand how different cultures perceive different types of child abuse and youth crime, and further explain this link. In my study of Japan, I will be concentrating on societal views towards child abuse, while in the study of the USA, I will be concentrating on the psychological effects of abuse and on juvenile delinquency.
Part two will be coming soon. If you liked this post, please give it a high rating and check out the rest of my blog!




Are you looking for positive critiques at all? This paper is amazing so far, I can't wait to read the rest of it. The only thing I would say is that I've found that taking out "I" statements often strengthens an argument.
Just an example:
"In this study, I will be exploring the subject" can turn into "This study will explore."
So far, though, your paper flows and reads like something I would expect to find in a professional journal.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
Um, I'm fine with any critique you care to make?
I'm worried about the sources D: see, I have a two-page bibliography... but as you notice I haven't put the source for each claim in my paper directly after the claim because I don't have time and it would clutter up the page so much (think 20 footnotes per page).
And, I will definitely change that. I actually gave a woman a very similar critique yesterday, how foolish of me not to notice.
I hate using foot notes for that very reason. I always just cite my source after the claim I make using their information.
takes up so much less room on a paper than footnotes.
Are you using a bibliography or a works cited page for references? I've been conditioned to APA formatting for so long that I've forgotten the rules of MLA's bibliography page and writing style. I think I learned that footnotes take away the need for a reference page, but I could be wrong and, well, they're just a pain in the neck to write out everytime you need to cite something.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
(Hey, since you liked it - rate? *ratingwhore*)
Um... what's the difference between a bibliography and works cited page? I have two pages titled "Sources" and then I have an alphabeticalized list of all the articles, essays, books, studies, etc I read (many. many. oh god. many. So many I'm trying to get academic credit for like, doing nothing next quarter but writing about shit I know).
Thing is, when I make a claim like, "Children who were orphaned, abandoned, and neglected were frequently also those who engaged in petty crime in their struggle to survive on their own, and more serious crime if they survived into adulthood. Parents who beat their children had usually suffered such beatings themselves when they were young. Others remain victims all their life and are swept into crime by others", doesn't it sound sort of... empty if I'm not saying where I'm getting those facts from? But I got those facts from like ten different articles. It would take hours to pinpoint precisely which source I used for which sentence... and htere's so many D:
Oh I rated it before my original comment. ;-)
I think the difference is the way the references are set up, what information goes into the page, comma placement and indentations... It's little things, really. APA format (works cited) is alphabatized by author. I think I remember a bibliography being alphabatized by title.
With that paragraph... are you expanding on those facts later? If so, later would be a good place to cite sources, and they'd probably be more specific to one reference as well. If not, footnotes might work better in that instance. Or, if all those facts were in a certain article (or more than one) just pick one to use (preferably the most recent source). You'll find the exact same inormation in a lot of different places. I always read through more references than I'm actually going to use in my paper.
If 2 or more references have the exact same information, I'll look at what else I'm using from it. If I got 5 points from one article, and 2 other articles only gave me 1 or 2 points--but both points were also in the first article, I just don't use the other 2 articles as references for my paper. I've already got the information from somewhere else.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
Hm, did it show up? Because when I posted that, the only rating was um, mine. XD
I'm expanding on SOME of the facts later, and then sorta using sources (i.e., "A study done by so and so in this year of this shows that..."), but most are still gonna be in the source page.
That's weird. When you posted, I saw 2 ratings (mine and yours). Now it's showing "no votes yet."
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
(Hey, since you liked it - rate? *ratingwhore*)
Um... what's the difference between a bibliography and works cited page? I have two pages titled "Sources" and then I have an alphabeticalized list of all the articles, essays, books, studies, etc I read (many. many. oh god. many. So many I'm trying to get academic credit for like, doing nothing next quarter but writing about shit I know).
Thing is, when I make a claim like, "Children who were orphaned, abandoned, and neglected were frequently also those who engaged in petty crime in their struggle to survive on their own, and more serious crime if they survived into adulthood. Parents who beat their children had usually suffered such beatings themselves when they were young. Others remain victims all their life and are swept into crime by others", doesn't it sound sort of... empty if I'm not saying where I'm getting those facts from? But I got those facts from like ten different articles. It would take hours to pinpoint precisely which source I used for which sentence... and htere's so many D:
Take out the "I" statements, or any words that can leave doubt, like think believe etc. You want your reader to know that what they are reading isn't just a thought or belief but a fact or the truth. But it is great otherwise!
Thanks, good suggestion. :) (and rate! rate!)
I think this will be a great research paper! It really is a topic that not very many understand fully (myself included) and that people need to be educated on.
I agree with most other people. Except i would define Child Abuse. I would define it as any thing that can cause serious mental or physical damage. Some people would define it as spanking and others and flicking their kid on the head. The other thing you said was "parents were seen as having the right to choose how to raise and discipline their child" which i think parents should be allowed to because i sure hope the government doesn't raise children (propaganda anyone?" But again there is a fine line between disciplining a child and child abuse. BUt great writing.