分类怪物:在伍德皇家委员会恋童癖调查中消除家庭儿童性虐待

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
D. McDonald
{"title":"分类怪物:在伍德皇家委员会恋童癖调查中消除家庭儿童性虐待","authors":"D. McDonald","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1841372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since the 1980s there has been a transformation in understandings of institutional child sexual abuse. While these developments have been long overdue, shifts in understanding other forms of child abuse and neglect have been much more incremental. This is particularly true of abuse occurring in the family. This article examines the Wood Royal Commission, which operated from 1994 until 1997 in the Australian state of New South Wales. Unlike inquiries into institutional child sexual abuse, its scope was not limited in terms of the scenarios of abuse that it investigated. Notwithstanding this, a flawed approach saw it effectively erase familial abuse as a sufficient matter of concern. While scholarly research on royal commissions frequently points to an inquiry’s terms of reference, or the failure of governments to implement recommendations in an inquiry’s aftermath, the Wood Royal Commission reveals a failure in investigative decision making. By positioning this Royal Commission within the broader terrain of public inquiries into child sexual abuse, I demonstrate how intrafamilial abuse continues to be neglected.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1841372","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Classifying the monster: the erasure of familial child sexual abuse in the Wood Royal Commission Paedophile Inquiry\",\"authors\":\"D. McDonald\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10383441.2020.1841372\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Since the 1980s there has been a transformation in understandings of institutional child sexual abuse. While these developments have been long overdue, shifts in understanding other forms of child abuse and neglect have been much more incremental. This is particularly true of abuse occurring in the family. This article examines the Wood Royal Commission, which operated from 1994 until 1997 in the Australian state of New South Wales. Unlike inquiries into institutional child sexual abuse, its scope was not limited in terms of the scenarios of abuse that it investigated. Notwithstanding this, a flawed approach saw it effectively erase familial abuse as a sufficient matter of concern. While scholarly research on royal commissions frequently points to an inquiry’s terms of reference, or the failure of governments to implement recommendations in an inquiry’s aftermath, the Wood Royal Commission reveals a failure in investigative decision making. By positioning this Royal Commission within the broader terrain of public inquiries into child sexual abuse, I demonstrate how intrafamilial abuse continues to be neglected.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1841372\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1841372\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1841372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

自20世纪80年代以来,对机构性侵儿童的理解发生了转变。虽然这些进展姗姗来迟,但对其他形式的虐待和忽视儿童的理解却发生了更大的变化。发生在家庭中的虐待尤其如此。本文考察了1994年至1997年在澳大利亚新南威尔士州运作的伍德皇家委员会。与对机构儿童性虐待的调查不同,调查的范围并不局限于所调查的虐待情节。尽管如此,一种有缺陷的方法认为它有效地消除了家庭虐待作为一个充分关注的问题。虽然关于皇家委员会的学术研究经常指出调查的职权范围,或者政府在调查后未能实施建议,但伍德皇家委员会揭示了调查决策的失败。通过将这个皇家委员会置于公众调查儿童性虐待的更广泛领域,我展示了家庭内部虐待是如何继续被忽视的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Classifying the monster: the erasure of familial child sexual abuse in the Wood Royal Commission Paedophile Inquiry
ABSTRACT Since the 1980s there has been a transformation in understandings of institutional child sexual abuse. While these developments have been long overdue, shifts in understanding other forms of child abuse and neglect have been much more incremental. This is particularly true of abuse occurring in the family. This article examines the Wood Royal Commission, which operated from 1994 until 1997 in the Australian state of New South Wales. Unlike inquiries into institutional child sexual abuse, its scope was not limited in terms of the scenarios of abuse that it investigated. Notwithstanding this, a flawed approach saw it effectively erase familial abuse as a sufficient matter of concern. While scholarly research on royal commissions frequently points to an inquiry’s terms of reference, or the failure of governments to implement recommendations in an inquiry’s aftermath, the Wood Royal Commission reveals a failure in investigative decision making. By positioning this Royal Commission within the broader terrain of public inquiries into child sexual abuse, I demonstrate how intrafamilial abuse continues to be neglected.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信