The instant case study combines legal issues, psychological issues and social issues all intertwined within the same scenario. The legal issue relates to an accusation of assault by Jerri against her stepfather Jimmie. The psychological issue relates to Jerri’s surprising resurgence of a suppressed memory of when she was 5 years old and was abused by her elder brother. The social issue relates to the capacity of Jerri’s current parent to take care of her and control her with a view of putting her in the system. These are all critical issues that require careful consideration. Further, these issues are also intertwined as the decision to be made in each will also have a bearing on the other. Most importantly, the instant issue relates to the welfare of a minor who is undergoing puberty and, therefore, at a very sensitive part of her life (Wallace, Roberson, & Ivonne, 2013).
The Battery Charge against Jimmie
It is worthy of notice that the instant question relates to an indictment and not a conviction thus the threshold of consideration for the police officer is much lower than that of a court. Secondly, the assault charges are against a grown up while the victim is a minor. From a legal perspective, every benefit of doubt should be given to the minor and not the adult (Wallace, Roberson, & Ivonne, 2013). Finally, the issue of assault must be considered specifically with regard to the definition of assault in the State of Confusion. This definition considers assault as pain or injury emanating from any offensive touching that is will full or unreasonable. It is not in dispute that Jerri suffered both pain and injury following the willful and offensive touching by Jimmie. Even if Jimmie only intended to slap her, the touching would still have been painful and offensive. The only consideration remaining, therefore, is if the touching was unreasonable. Jimmie is a man living with a teenage girl who is not his biological daughter. This situation calls for him to be extra cautious at all times. The slap in any event was reactionary and not calculated which shows an element of anger. The benefit of doubt should go to Jerri thus Jimmie should be charged with assault and allowed to establish his defence of accident in court.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Jimmies Guilt for Assault
As indicated above, there is a manifest difference between indictment and conviction. For a conviction to ensue, a charge must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt (Wallace, Roberson, & Ivonne, 2013). Jimmie has been charged by giving the benefit of doubt to Jerri as she is a minor, convictions however, are based on evidence. The case study clearly indicates that at the time when Jimmie hit Jerri, the other family members were present. Yet only Jimmie claims it was an accident meaning the other family members are not defending his action. This leaves Jimmie with his defence on accident, Jerri strongly accusing him of intentionally ripping of her earing and injuring her ear and the rest of the family members giving neutral evidence.
The case will, therefore, come down to if what Jimmie admits amounts to assault as per the laws of the State of Confusion. A slap that can accidentally rip of an earring tearing off an earlobe must have been a very hard one. Even without the alleged accidental contact of Jimmie’s ring and Jerri’s earring, the slap would still have been painful and injurious to a 13 year old girl. Further, whatever wrong Jerri was being accused of was not extreme enough to elicit the excessive and primal reaction of Jimmie. Under the circumstances, Jimmie is clearly guilty of assault or in the very least of abusing Jerri.
Psychological Evaluation on the Removal of Jerri from the Home
The definition of Jerri is that of a troubled child who is a danger to herself. Sneaking out late at night exposes Jerri to circumstances that can ruin her life. These include engaging in crime, drug abuse, assault or rape. Yet even after being caught several times and punished, Jerri’s conduct has not improved. However, Jerri is capable of being controlled since when reasonable punishment regimens are given, she adheres to them. The failure can, therefore, only be on the part of the parents. Finally, the assault/abuse has eliminated any goodwill that may have remained between Jerri and her parents with Jimmie even suggesting that Jerri should be declared a delinquent. On this basis, the parents can be considered as incompetent to cater for Jerri and a recommendation to remove her from their care would be in order (Wallace, Roberson, & Ivonne, 2013).
Recollection of Assault before the Age of 5
Any observation made by a child under the age of 5 can only be assessed based on the level of maturity by that child at the moment of observation. The observation will also be assessed on the basis of time lapsed which will also have an effect on the observation and memory thereof. The recollection by Jerri about her assault as a child is being made at a time when her maturity during the time when the assault happened cannot be evaluated due to lapse of time. Further, the memory is also at least 8 years old and may have been blurred. Finally, the character of Jerri does not reflect honesty and being liable for a declaration of delinquency can lie to protect herself. On this basis, the memory of assault cannot be deemed credible from a psychological perspective and is also not admissible in Court.
Reference
Wallace, H., Roberson, C., & Ivonne, P. (2013). Family violence: Legal, medical, and social perspectives (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
