Today I was shown a video that had apparently been submitted as evidence of a two year child being beaten by an adult carer. It depicted the child being trampled on whilst being generally beaten and kicked around. I don't think I could put down in words what it actually looked like as the kid zipped across the viewable screen as it was booted. From what I was told the carer wasn't in fact the parent (it obviously would have been far worse if it was one of the parents). However if it wasn't for this video evidence no one would have been any the wiser for the carer to be sweet as pie in font of everyone and for the child to say nothing out of fear or out of not knowing any better thinking it was normal. The particular case was apparently only brought to justice a few weeks ago in Cambodia thanks to this video evidence. Its odd how the person filming took so long the break it up. Its also strange that in such situations how the abuser always asks the child why its crying even more when the abuser tries to go near the child whilst telling it to come closer. Well if i were to hazard a guess its probably because the kids a little concerned that the person supposedly looking after them was about to launch another sudden swift surprise assault on them to the point (as in this particular instance) where the kid pisses itself, then ontop of it they then threaten to beat the child some more if they don't stop crying. As per usual the childs reluctance to come any closer only infuriates the carer a little more.
 
Is it any wonder that some want to break away from certain things based on their negative experiences if in fact their negative experiences have served as a contrast to more positive experiences and types of behaviors that they've been subjected to within a place/places where they've seen and experienced better alternatives?

 

Its just basic stuff but I guess its worth going over for the sake of posterity

Why do I think it matters that it should be prevented if possible? Because basic psychology tells us that often the abuse that children are subject to in childhood is often replicated by the child in later life as an adult in some form or other which more often then not is projected onto their own offspring if and when they do come to have them if not other victims. Its also often the case where the child will cover for their carer or person that was entrusted with the responsibility of looking after them amidst the whole notion of saving face depending on the context of the culture and values carried by the family as well as how deeply engrained it is. Often its also out of sense of loyalty if not torn loyalty to the people that constantly hang over their head that it was it was indeed them that brought the "wretched child" into the world amidst all the other elements to create sentimental attachment.
 
Obviously it doesn't always boil down to physical abuse as certain types of literally scalding mental/verbal abuse could prove to be damaging too but I guess it helps if you don't actually understand what a parent might be saying to you as a small child when they're venomously blasting a child with every single profanity under sun in an attempt to try and make them feel as cheap and worthless as possible over something as trivial as spilling something or not understanding something as I've observed some time ago way in the past. But as ever it says more about the way they may have been treated themselves as a child by their parents and carers as their parents have been treated by their parents and carers before.
 
Often young and inexperienced parents (possibly even experienced parents too for that matter depending on the cultural context) rely on the abusive methods that they were subjected to as a child themselves thus not breaking the cycle that comes with certain culturally linked facets of how child abuse and cruelty may come about and perpetuate itself.
 
In other extreme cases it could be sexually linked where children under the age of 16 years of age are groomed into partaking in sexual acts with adults. Adults being people over the age of 18 years in the UK and 21 in the US. The age of consent for engaging in sexual intercourse with adults within the UK is 16 years of age since its the age you're legally allowed to enter the world of work and are potentially able support a family. The child having been accustomed to it wouldn't really have any moral issue with it thinking that it was normal as an adult thus continuing the cycle despite it maybe not being the generally accepted social norm for it to then remain a covert activity shrouded in secrecy amidst those involved.



Updated:

In conclusion to the story about the child that was beaten by its carer. Its already been posted so I can't really take it down but here's a little more to go on in order to frame it with a little more context. The circumstances surrounding it seemed a little muddled to begin with as I was acting on third and possibly even forth hand word of mouth information that seemed to ever so slightly change in its corroborative consistency each time it was told which is a definite faux pas as far as using it as some sort of source material to disseminate any sort of truth from with having no kind of direct reliable source to go off. That is some verbally articulated sources can change in the sense that it still remains faithfully in keeping with its original details to then change a little in the sense of additional details and contexts coming to the fore and fill out gaps and picture thus having greater credibility. This was one of those stories which didn't seem to be too credible regarding its finer details and context despite the video evidence still standing and being as stark as it was. But in today's technological world where even video editing software is available to the general consumer you can't necessarily even trust video evidence these days. Especially blurry low res footage as even computer generated animated video sequences could look very similar in quality. That's having not even yet mentioned the high res stuff that can be fabricated with today's video imaging technology.

 

But for the sake of putting down some food for thought within the context of what I've been led to believe and nothing more, lets mull it over a little more...

 

So from what I've been told the carer was apparently also killed by the father at some point between the actual beating of the child and the claimed resolve of bringing the case to justice based on the video evidence. It's a major step up from the carer having her arm broken by any measure.

 

 

 

Trying to discourage the sort of thing that escalates gangster and mob mentality

 

In any case although the fathers reaction was perfectly understandable, would the seemingly "karmic" resolve be fitting or would you say it was a little severe? Obviously within the western judicial system of the UK and the US the father would have also had to face a charge of manslaughter due to the fact that he had killed somebody and the child was in fact still alive despite its extremely traumatic and harrowing experience. The child would have still already been subjected to the abuse whether the carer lived or died thus the damage would have still already been done. From what I could gather the carer was killed by the father after the abuse took place thus was kind of planned almost like a murder. That is the carer was not killed in the heat of the actual moments that the abuse was taking place in an attempt to intervene, protect the child and stop the abuse as it was happening. With the child being alive after the recorded and now witnessed abuse there would have been other ways to permanently stop the abuse from happening as well as punish and possibly rehabilitate the carer which would not have involved her death in a revenge killing.

 

Also what of the actual carer? There must be a reason for her being the way she was. However understandably we don't stop to consider her circumstances which could possibly be learnt from to stop other people becoming the way she did by implementing some sort of social policy. Who's to say that this kind of thing doesn't happen elsewhere but just hasn't been caught.

 

Speaking hypothetically, lets say the child had actually been killed as a result of the abuse. Would killing the carer actually take away the abuse that was inflicted on the child or even bring the child back?