(Download PDF) Juvenile Delinquency The Core 4th Edition Siegel Test Bank Full Chapter

Juvenile Delinquency The Core 4th
Edition Siegel Test Bank

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/juvenile-delinquency-the-core-4th-edition-siegel-test-
bank/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Juvenile Delinquency The Core 6th Edition Siegel Test

Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/juvenile-delinquency-the-
core-6th-edition-siegel-test-bank/
Juvenile Delinquency Theory Practice and Law 11th

Edition Siegel Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/juvenile-delinquency-theory-
practice-and-law-11th-edition-siegel-test-bank/
Criminology The Core 4th Edition Siegel Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/criminology-the-core-4th-edition-
siegel-test-bank/
Juvenile Delinquency 9th Edition Thompson Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/juvenile-delinquency-9th-edition-
thompson-test-bank/
Juvenile Delinquency 3rd Edition Bartollas Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/juvenile-delinquency-3rd-edition-
bartollas-test-bank/
Juvenile Delinquency 9th Edition Bartollas Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/juvenile-delinquency-9th-edition-
bartollas-test-bank/
Juvenile Delinquency in a Diverse Society 2nd Edition

Bates Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/juvenile-delinquency-in-a-
diverse-society-2nd-edition-bates-test-bank/
Marketing The Core Canadian 4th Edition Kerin Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/marketing-the-core-canadian-4th-
edition-kerin-test-bank/
Corporate Finance The Core 4th Edition Berk Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/corporate-finance-the-core-4th-
edition-berk-test-bank/
Chapter 7: The Family and Delinquency
MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Which of the following children is least likely to live in a two-parent household?

a. an African American child c. a Hispanic child
b. an Asian American child d. a White non-Hispanic child
ANS: D REF: Page 170 OBJ: 7-2
2. Which of the following children is most likely to live in a two-parent household?

a. an African American child c. a Hispanic child
b. an Asian American child d. a White non-Hispanic child
ANS: B REF: Page 170 OBJ: 7-2
3. Which of the following statements about the American family is false?

a. about two-thirds of underage children live in two-parent families
b. about 75 percent of African America children will experience parental separation
or divorce
c. about one-quarter of all mothers of school-age children are employed
d. none of the above statements are false
ANS: C REF: Page 170 OBJ: 7-2
4. Today about ___________ of African American children live in a two-parent household.

a. one-quarter c. two-thirds
b. half d. one-fifth
ANS: A REF: Page 170 OBJ: 7-2
5. About 90 percent of day care providers:

a. routinely pass the stringent licensing requirements
b. routinely keep youths in holding pens to manage their behavior
c. have been under investigation at some time or another
d. operate “underground”
6. What percentage of American children currently live in poverty?

a. 25 percent c. 15 percent
b. 35 percent d. 5 percent
7. According to the text, there are four categories of family dysfunction that seem to promote
delinquent behavior. Which of the following is not one of these four categories?
a. family breakup c. family effectiveness
b. family conflict d. family makeup
8. Which of the following best describes a blended family?
a. nuclear families made up of two parents, their children, and grandparents
b. nuclear families made up of two parents and their children
c. nuclear made up of children and one single parent
d. nuclear families that are the produce of divorce and remarriage
9. A study of more than 4,000 youths in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester found that the more
often a child is forced to go through family transitions:
a. the more his or her grades suffer
b. the more likely he or she is to be diagnosed with clinical depression
c. the more likely he or she is to become extroverted
d. the more likely he or she is to become delinquent
10. Which of the following statements about gender-specific effects of divorce is false?
a. Boys seem to be more affected by the post-divorce absence of the father
b. Girls are more affected by both the quality of the mother’s parenting
c. Boys are more affected by post-divorce parental conflict
d. Boys are less likely to become delinquent if the divorced fathers remain actively
involved in their lives
11. Nye established a link between parental conflict and delinquency with the finding that:
a. children of carnival workers have higher delinquency rates than other groups
b. a child’s perception of marital happiness was a significant predictor of
delinquency
c. children who witness marital violence have higher delinquency rates than other
groups
d. children who are victimized in the home have higher delinquency rates than other
groups
12. Large families may suffer from _______________________ when resources are spread too
thin.
a. Mother Hubbard syndrome c. resource dilution
b. Walton’s syndrome d. resource competition
13. Which of the following is not one of the factors presented in the text as playing a role in
intergenerational deviance?
a. genetic factors c. parenting
b. stigma d. ethnicity
14. ___________________ refers to deprivations children suffer at the hands of their parents,
such as lack of food, shelter, and adequate health care.
a. Physical abuse c. Emotional abuse
b. Physical neglect d. Educational neglect
15. ___________________ is manifested by constant criticism and rejection of the child by the
parents.
a. Physical abuse c. Emotional abuse
b. Physical neglect d. Educational neglect
16. Psychologists suggest that maltreatment encourages children to use ________________ as a

means of solving problems and prevents them from feeling empathy for others.
a. rationality c. introspection
b. aggression d. resistance
17. In the United States today, an estimated ________ children die each year because of abuse.
a. 500 c. 1200
b. 900 d. 1600
18. Which of the following statements about child abuse and neglect is false?
a. parents who themselves suffered abuse tend to abuse their own children
b. isolated and alienated families tend to become abusive
c. victimization rates are higher for older children than their younger brothers and
sisters
d. African-American children suffer child abuse rates far higher than European
American children
19. A ____________________ is a lawyer appointed by the court to look after the interests of
those who do not have the capacity to assert their own rights.
a. guardian ad litem c. counsel del rio
b. attorney del casa d. counselor de prima
20. In ________________________, the Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the
Constitution protects against government interference with certain fundamental rights and
liberty interests, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care,
custody, and control of their children.
a. Jones v. Kentucky c. Troxel v. Granville
b. White v. Illinois d. Kramer v. Kramer
21. During a _____________________, the court reviews the facts of the case, determines
whether removal of the child from the home is justified, and notifies the parents of charges
against them.
a. advisement hearing c. family court trial
b. adjudication hearing d. interlocutory hearing
22. At the _____________________, the attorney for the social service agency presents an
overview of the case and the evidence; matters such as admissibility of photos and written
reports are settled. The attorneys can negotiate a settlement of the case, in which the parents
accept a treatment plan.
a. adjudication hearing c. pretrial conference
b. disposition hearing d. review hearing
23. At the ____________________, the social service agency presents its case plan, which
includes visitation plans, services, or other conditions of the formal agreement.
a. adjudication hearing c. pretrial conference
b. disposition hearing d. review hearing
24. It is estimated that about _____ out of every 100 child abuse or neglect cases reaches the trial
stage.
a. 2 c. 25
b. 10 d. 46
25. Many states use the __________________ approach to accommodate the parents’ natural
right to control their children and the child’s right to grow up free from harm.
a. dual prong c. middle of the road
b. twin pillar d. balancing-of-the-interests
26. _____________________ are periodically held to determine if the conditions of the case plan
are being met.
a. Review hearings c. Preliminary hearing
b. Family court trial d. Assessment hearing
27. States have relaxed their laws of evidence to allow out-of-court statements by the child to a
social worker, teacher, or police officer to be used as evidence such statements would
otherwise be considered:
a. hearsay c. corroborative evidence
b. physical evidence d. circumstantial evidence
28. In a 1992 case, _____________________, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s attorney is
required neither to produce young victims at trial nor to demonstrate the reason why they were
unavailable to serve as witnesses.
a. Tinker v. Maryland c. White v. Illinois
b. McDonald v. New Hampshire d. Berg v. California
29. In ____________________, the Court ruled that one-way CCTV could serve as the equivalent
of in court testimony and would not interfere with the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.
a. Jones v. Kentucky c. Maryland v. Craig
b. White v. Illinois d. Kramer v. Kramer
30. Which of the following statements about the abuse-delinquency link is false?
a. Holsinger and Holsinger surveyed incarcerated adolescent girls and found distinct
racial differences in the way the girls reacted to abuse experiences
b. Research shows that the timing and extent of abuse may shape its impact
c. Self-report studies suggest that child maltreatment increases the likelihood of
delinquency
d. Kids who are only abused during early childhood may be more likely to engage in
chronic delinquency
TRUE/FALSE
1. Research studies indicate that good parenting only lowers the risk of delinquency for children
living in affluent areas.
ANS: F REF: Page 169 OBJ: 7-5
2. The time a father spends with his children has decreased over the past decades.
3. According to the text, 75 percent of African American children will experience parental
separation or divorce before they reach age sixteen.
ANS: T REF: Page 170 OBJ: 7-2
4. Asian American children are more likely to live in two-parent households than are European
American children.
5. According to the text, family breakup is the only type of family dysfunction that has been
found to promote delinquent behavior.

6. Children growing up in families disrupted by parental death are less adjusted than children of
divorce.
7. Boys are more affected by both the quality of the mother’s parenting and post-divorce
parental conflict.
8. Research indicates that children growing up in broken homes were less adjusted than children
growing up in homes with high levels of conflict.
9. Nye found that mothers who threatened discipline but failed to carry it out were more likely to
have delinquent children than those who were consistent in their discipline.
10. Children who are subject to even minimal amounts of physical punishment are more likely to
use violence themselves.
11. Farrington reported that bullies are likely to have children who bully others.
12. If one sibling is delinquent, research indicates that the probability is low to have another
delinquent in the family.
13. In the United States, concerted efforts to deal with parental abuse and neglect did not begin
until 1874.
14. C. Henry Kempe of the University of Colorado coined the term “battered child syndrome.”
15. Physical neglect results from parents’ failure to provide adequate food, shelter, or medical
care for their children.
16. About 50 percent of all reported cases of maltreatment are substantiated after investigation.

17. Stepchildren are overrepresented in cases of familicide.
18. In the cases of Lassiter v. Department of Social Services and Santosky v. Kramer, the U.S.
Supreme Court recognized the child’s right to be free from parental abuse.
19. According to the text, the most crucial part of an abuse or neglect proceeding is the
advisement hearing when the social service agency presents its recommendations for care of
the child.
20. Because people are generally sympathetic to abused children, delinquents with abuse
backgrounds get lighter sentences than those who were not abused.
COMPLETION
1. A _________ home is a nuclear family that is the product of divorce and remarriage.
ANS: blended
REF: Page 173 OBJ: 7-2
2. The term ______________________________ is used to refer to an environment of discord

and conflict within the family.
ANS: intrafamily violence
3. _______________________ refers to families in which parents are able to integrate their

children into the household unit while at the same time helping assert their individuality and
regulate their own behavior.
ANS: Parental efficacy
4. _____________________ is a condition that occurs when parents have such large families
that their resources, such as time and money, are spread too thin, causing lack of familial
support and control.
ANS: Resource dilution

5. ________________________ is manifested by constant criticism and rejection of the child by
the parents.
ANS: Emotional abuse
6. Passive neglect by a parent or guardian, depriving children of food, shelter, health care, and
love is called ______________________.
ANS: physical neglect
7. ___________________ occurs when parents physically leave their children with the intention
of completely severing the parent-child relationship.
ANS: Abandonment
8. __________________ refers to deprivations children suffer at the hands of their parents, such
as lack of food, shelter, and adequate health care.
ANS: Neglect
9. The ________________________ refers to non-accidental physical injury of children by their

parents or guardians.
ANS: battered child syndrome
10. Mass murders in which a spouse and one or more children are slain are known as
_______________________.
ANS: familicide
11. A _______________________ is a lawyer appointed by the court to look after the interests of
those who do not have the capacity to assert their own rights.
ANS: guardian ad litem

12. The ______________________ is a preliminary protective or temporary custody hearing in
which the court will review the facts and determine whether removal of the child is justified
and notify parents of the charges against them.
ANS: advisement hearing
13. At the ________________________, the attorney for the social services agency presents an
overview of the case, and a plea bargain or negotiated settlement can be agreed to in a consent
decree.
ANS: pretrial conference
14. At the _______________________, the social service agency presents its case plan and
recommendations for care of the child and treatment of the parents, including incarceration
and counseling or other treatment.
ANS: disposition hearing
15. ________________________ are periodic meetings to determine whether the conditions of

the case plan for an abused child are being met by the parents or guardians of the child.
ANS: Review hearings
16. Many states use the ____________ approach to accommodate the parents’ natural right to
control their children and the child’s right to grow up free from harm.
ANS: balancing-of-the-interests
17. States have relaxed laws of evidence to allow out of court statements by a child, otherwise
considered __________________, to be used as evidence.
ANS: hearsay
18. In the 1990 case ______________________, the court ruled that the states attorney is required
neither to produce young victims at trial not to demonstrate the reasons they were unavailable
to serve as witnesses.
ANS: White v. Illinois

19. In ________________________ (1988), the Supreme Court placed limitations on efforts to

protect child witnesses in court, ruling that unless there is a finding that the child witness
needs special protections, the Constitution grants defendants “face-to-face” confrontation with
their accusers.
ANS: Coy v. Iowa
REF: Pages 191-192 OBJ: 7-9
20. In _____________________, the Court ruled that CCTV could serve as the equivalent of in
court testimony and would not interfere with the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.
ANS: Maryland v. Craig
ESSAY
1. Describe and discuss how parenting impacts delinquency.
ANS:
No answer given
REF: Page 172-179 OBJ: 7-5
2. Identify and discuss the four categories of family dysfunction that promote delinquent
behavior.
ANS:
No answer given
3. Identify and discuss the various types of child abuse.
ANS:
No answer given
4. Compare and contrast advisement, disposition, and review hearings. Provide examples.
ANS:
No answer given
REF: Page 187-190 OBJ: 7-8
5. Discuss the relationship between abuse, neglect, and juvenile delinquency.

ANS:
No answer given
REF: Page 192-194 OBJ: 7-10

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
If a civil officer should, under the pending amendment, attempt to
quell a riot by calling on the bystanders, if they have arms, he is
punishable for that. If a marshal, the marshal of the district in which
the election occurs, the marshal nominated to the Senate and
confirmed by the Senate—I do not mean a deputy marshal—should
see an affray or a riot at the polls on election day and call upon the
bystanders to quell it, if this bill becomes a law, and one of those
bystanders has a revolver in his pocket, or another one takes a stick
or a cudgel in his hand, the marshal may be fined $5,000 and
punished by five years’ imprisonment.
Such are the devices to belittle national authority and national law,
to turn the idea of the sovereignty of the nation into a laughing-stock
and a by-word.
Under what pretexts is this uprooting and overturning to be? Any
officer who transgresses the law, be he civil or military, may be
punished in the courts of the State or in the courts of the nation
under existing law. Is the election act unconstitutional? The courts
for ten years have been open to that question. The law has been
pounded with all the hammers of the lawyers, but it has stood the
test; no court has pronounced it unconstitutional, although many
men have been prosecuted and convicted under it. Judge Woodruff
and Judge Blatchford have vindicated its constitutionality. But, as I
said before, the constitutional argument has been abandoned. The
supreme political court, practically now above Congresses or even
constitutions, the democratic caucus, has decided that the law is
constitutional. The record of the judgment is in the legislative bill.
We are told it costs money to enforce the law. Yes, it costs money
to enforce all laws; it costs money to prosecute smugglers,
counterfeiters, murderers, mail robbers and others. We have been
informed that it has cost $200,000 to execute the election act. It cost
more than $5,000,000,000 in money alone, to preserve our
institutions and our laws, in one war, and the nation which bled and
the nation which paid is not likely to give up its institutions and the
birthright of its citizens for $200,000. [Applause in the galleries.]
The presiding officer, (Mr. Cockrell, in the chair.) The Senator
will suspend a moment. The chair will announce to the galleries that
there shall be no more applause; if so, the galleries will be cleared
immediately.
Mr. Conkling. Mr. President, that interruption reminds me, the
present occupant of the chair having been deeply interested in the
bill, that the appropriations made and squandered for local and
unlawful improvements in the last river and harbor bill alone, would
pay for executing the election law as long as grass grows or water
runs. The interest on the money wrongfully squandered in that one
bill, would execute it twice over perpetually. The cost of this needless
extra session, brought about as a partisan contrivance, would execute
the election law for a great while. A better way to save the cost, than
to repeal the law, is to obey it. Let White Leagues and rifle clubs
disband; let your night-riders dismount; let your tissue ballot-box
stuffers desist; let repeaters, false-counters, and ruffians no longer be
employed to carry elections, and then the cost of executing the law
will disappear from the public ledger.
Again we are told that forty-five million people are in danger from
an army nominally of twenty-five thousand men scattered over a
continent, most of them beyond the frontiers of civilized abode.
Military power has become an affrighting specter. Soldiers at the
polls are displeasing to a political party. What party? That party
whose Administration ordered soldiers, who obeyed, to shoot down
and kill unoffending citizens here in the streets of Washington on
election day; that party which has arrested and dispersed
Legislatures at the point of the bayonet; that party which has
employed troops to carry elections to decide that a State should be
slave and should not be free; that party which has corraled courts of
justice with national bayonets, and hunted panting fugitive slaves, in
peaceful communities, with artillery and dragoons; that party which
would have to-day no majority in either House of Congress except for
elections dominated and decided by violence and fraud; that party
under whose sway, in several States, not only the right to vote, but
the right to be, is now trampled under foot.
Such is the source of an insulting summons to the Executive to
become particeps criminis in prostrating wholesome laws, and this
is the condition on which the money of the people, paid by the
people, shall be permitted to be used for the purposes for which the
people paid it.
Has the present national Administration been officiously robust in
checking the encroachments and turbulence of democrats, either by
the use of troops or otherwise? I ask this question because the next
election is to occur during the term of the present Administration.
What is the need of revolutionary measures now? What is all this
uproar and commotion, this daring venture of partisan experiment,
for? Why not make your issue against these laws, and carry your
issue to the people? If you can elect a President and a Congress of
your thinking, you will have it all your own way.
Why now should there be an attempt to block the wheels of
government on the eve of an election at which this whole question is
triable before the principals and masters of us all? The answer is
inevitable. But one truthful explanation can be made of this daring
enterprise. It is a political, a partisan manœuvre. It is a strike for
party advantage. With a fair election and an honest count, the
democratic party cannot carry the country. These laws, if executed,
insure some approach to a fair election. Therefore they stand in the
way, and therefore they are to be broken down.
I reflect upon no man’s motives, but I believe that the sentiment
which finds expression in the transaction now proceeding in the two
houses of Congress, has its origin in the idea I have stated. I believe
that the managers and charioteers of the democratic party think that
with a fair election and a fair count they cannot carry the State of
New York. They know that with free course, such as existed in 1868,
to the ballot-box and count, no matter what majority may be given in
that State where the green grass grows, the great cities will
overbalance and swamp it. They know that with the ability to give
eighty, ninety, one hundred thousand majority in the county of New
York and the county of Kings, half of it fraudulently added, it is idle
for the three million people living above the Highlands of the
Hudson to vote.
This is a struggle for power. It is a fight for empire. It is a
contrivance to clutch the National Government. That we believe; that
I believe.
The nation has tasted, and drunk to the dregs, the sway of the
democratic party, organized and dominated by the same influences
which dominate it again and still. You want to restore that dominion.
We mean to resist you at every step and by every lawful means that
opportunity places in our hands. We believe that it is good for the
country, good for every man North and South who loves the country
now, that the Government should remain in the hands of those who
were never against it. We believe that it is not wise or safe to give
over our nationality to the dominion of the forces which formerly
and now again rule the democratic party. We do not mean to connive
at further conquests, and we tell you that if you gain further political
power, you must gain it by fair means, and not by foul. We believe
that these laws are wholesome. We believe that they are necessary
barriers against wrongs, necessary defenses for rights; and so
believing, we will keep and defend them even to the uttermost of
lawful honest effort.
The other day, it was Tuesday I think, it pleased the honorable
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Davis] to deliver to the Senate an address,
I had rather said an opinion, able and carefully prepared. That
honorable Senator knows well the regard not only, but the sincere
respect in which I hold him, and he will not misunderstand the
freedom with which I shall refer to some of his utterances.
Whatever else his sayings fail to prove, they did I think, prove their
author, after Mrs. Winslow, the most copious and inexhaustible
fountain of soothing syrup. The honorable Senator seemed like one
slumbering in a storm and dreaming of a calm. He said there was no
uproar anywhere—one would infer you could hear a pin drop—from
centre to circumference. Rights, he said, are secure. I have his
language here. If I do not seem to give the substance aright I will stop
and read it. Rights secure North and South; peace and tranquillity
everywhere. The law obeyed and no need of special provisions or
anxiety. It was in this strain that the Senator discoursed.
Are rights secure, when fresh-done barbarities show that local
government in one portion of our land is no better than despotism
tempered by assassination? Rights secure, when such things can be,
as stand proved and recorded by committees of the Senate! Rights
secure, when the old and the young fly in terror from their homes,
and from the graves of their murdered dead! Rights secure, when
thousands brave cold, hunger, death, seeking among strangers in a
far country a humanity which will remember that—
“Before man made them citizens,
Great nature made them men!”
Read the memorial signed by Judge Dillon, by the democratic
mayor of Saint Louis, by Mr. Henderson, once a member of the
Senate, and by other men known to the nation, detailing what has
been done in recent weeks on the Southern Mississippi. Read the
affidavits accompanying this memorial. Has any one a copy of the
memorial here? I have seen the memorial. I have seen the signatures.
I hope the honorable Senator from Illinois will read it, and read the
affidavits which accompany it. When he does, he will read one of the
most sickening recitals of modern times. He will look upon one of the
bloodiest and blackest pictures in the book of recent years. Yet the
Senator says, all is quiet. “There is not such faith, no not in Israel.”
Verily “order reigns in Warsaw.”
Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Mr. President, the republican party every where wants peace and
prosperity—peace and prosperity in the South, as much and as
sincerely as elsewhere. Disguising the truth, will not bring peace and
prosperity. Soft phrases will not bring peace. “Fair words butter no
parsnips.” We hear a great deal of loose, flabby talk about “fanning
dying embers,” “rekindling smoldering fires,” and so on. Whenever
the plain truth is spoken, these unctious monitions, with a Peter
Parley benevolence, fall copiously upon us. This lullaby and hush has
been in my belief a mistake from the beginning. It has misled the
South and misled the North. In Andrew Johnson’s time a convention
was worked up at Philadelphia, and men were brought from the
North and South, for ecstasy and gush. A man from Massachusetts
and a man from South Carolina locked arms and walked into the
convention arm in arm, and sensation and credulity palpitated, and
clapped their hands, and thought an universal solvent had been
found. Serenades were held at which “Dixie” was played. Later on,
anniversaries of battles fought in the war of Independence, were
made occasions by men from the North and men from the South for
emotional, dramatic, hugging ceremonies. General Sherman, I
remember, attended one of them, and I remember also, that with the
bluntness of a soldier, and the wisdom and hard sense of a
statesman, he plainly cautioned all concerned not to be carried away,
and not to be fooled. But many have been fooled, and being fooled,
have helped to swell the democratic majorities which now display
themselves before the public eye.
Of all such effusive demonstrations I have this to say: honest,
serious convictions are not ecstatic or emotional. Grave affairs and
lasting purposes do not express or vent themselves in honeyed
phrase or sickly sentimentality, rhapsody, or profuse professions.
This is as true of political as of religious duties. The Divine Master
tells us, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven.”
Facts are stubborn things, but the better way to deal with them is
to look them squarely in the face.
The republican party and the Northern people preach no crusade
against the South. I will say nothing of the past beyond a single fact.
When the war was over, no man who fought against his flag was
punished even by imprisonment. No estate was confiscated. Every
man was left free to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
After the Southern States were restored to their relations in the
Union, no man was ever disfranchised by national authority—not
one. If this statement is denied, I invite any Senator to correct me. I
repeat it. After the Southern State governments were rebuilded, and
the States were restored to their relations in the Union, by national
authority, not one man for one moment was ever denied the right to
vote, or hindered in the right. From the time that Mississippi was
restored, there never has been an hour when Jefferson Davis might
not vote as freely as the honorable Senator in his State of Illinois. The
North, burdened with taxes, draped in mourning, dotted over with
new-made graves tenanted by her bravest and her best, sought to
inflict no penalty upon those who had stricken her with the greatest,
and, as she believed, the guiltiest rebellion that ever crimsoned the
annals of the human race.
As an example of generosity and magnanimity, the conduct of the
nation in victory was the grandest the world has ever seen. The same
spirit prevails now. Yet our ears are larumed with the charge that the
republicans of the North seek to revive and intensify the wounds and
pangs and passions of the war, and that the southern democrats seek
to bury them in oblivion of kind forgetfulness.
We can test the truth of these assertions right before our eyes. Let
us test them. Twenty-seven States adhered to the Union in the dark
hour. Those States send to Congress two hundred and sixty-nine
Senators and Representatives. Of these two hundred and sixty-nine
Senators and Representatives, fifty-four, and only fifty-four, were
soldiers in the armies of the Union. The eleven States which were
disloyal send ninety-three Senators and Representatives to Congress.
Of these, eighty-five were soldiers in the armies of the rebellion, and
at least three more held high civil station in the rebellion, making in
all eighty-eight out of ninety-three.
Let me state the same fact, dividing the Houses. There are but four
Senators here who fought in the Union Army. They all sit here now;
and there are but four. Twenty Senators sit here who fought in the
army of the rebellion, and three more Senators sit here who held
high civil command in the confederacy.
In the House, there are fifty Union soldiers from twenty-seven
States, and sixty-five confederate soldiers from eleven States.
Who, I ask you, Senators, tried by this record, is keeping up party
divisions on the issues and hatreds of the war?
The South is solid. Throughout all its borders it has no seat here
save two in which a republican sits. The Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. Bruce] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kellogg] are still
spared; and whisper says that an enterprise is afoot to deprive one of
these Senators of his seat. The South is emphatically solid. Can you
wonder that the North soon becomes solid too? Do you not see that
the doings witnessed now in Congress fill the North with alarm, and
distrust of the patriotism and good faith of men from the South?
Forty-two democrats have seats on this floor; forty-three if you add
the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Davis.] He does not belong
to the democratic party, although I must say, after reading his speech
the other day, that a democrat who asks anything more of him is an
insatiate monster. [Laughter.] If we count the Senator from Illinois,
there are forty-three democrats in this Chamber. Twenty-three is a
clear majority of all, and twenty-three happens to be exactly the
number of Senators from the South who were leaders in the late
rebellion.
Do you anticipate my object in stating these numbers? For fear you
do not, let me explain. Forty-two Senators rule the Senate; twenty-
three Senators rule the caucus. A majority rules the Senate; a caucus
rules the majority; and the twenty-three southern Senators rule the
caucus. The same thing, in the same way, governed by the same
elements, is true in the House.
This present assault upon the purity and fairness of elections,
upon the Constitution, upon the executive department, and upon the
rights of the people; not the rights of a king, not on such rights as we
heard the distinguished presiding officer, who I am glad now to
discover in his seat, dilate upon of a morning some weeks ago; not
the divine right of kings, but the inborn rights of the people—the
present assault upon them, could never have been inaugurated
without the action of the twenty-three southern Senators here, and
the southern Representatives there, [pointing to the House.]
The people of the North know this and see it. They see the lead and
control of the democratic party again where it was before the war, in
the hands of the South. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The
honorable Senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan], educated no doubt
by experience in political appearances, and spectacular effects, said
the other day that he preferred the democrats from the North should
go first in this debate. I admired his sagacity. It was the skill of an
experienced tactician to deploy the northern levies as the sappers
and miners; it was very becoming certainly. It was not from cruelty,
or to make them food for powder, that he set them in the forefront of
the battle; he thought it would appear better for the northern
auxiliaries to go first and tunnel the citadel. Good, excellent, as far as
it went; but it did not go very far in misleading anybody; putting the
tail foremost and the head in the sand, only displayed the species and
habits of the bird. [Laughter.]
We heard the other day that “the logic of events” had filled the
southern seats here with men banded together by a common history
and a common purpose. The Senator who made that sage
observation perhaps builded better than he knew. The same logic of
events, let me tell democratic Senators, and the communities behind
them, is destined to bring from the North more united delegations.
I read in a newspaper that it was proposed the other day in
another place, to restore to the Army of the United States men who,
educated at the nation’s cost and presented with the nation’s sword,
drew the sword against the nation’s life. In the pending bill is a
provision for the retirement of officers now in the Army, with
advanced rank and exaggerated pay. This may be harmless, it may be
kind. One swallow proves not spring, but along with other things,
suspicion will see in it an attempt to coax officers now in the Army to
dismount, to empty their saddles, in order that others may get on.
So hue and cry is raised because courts, on motion, for cause
shown in open court, have a right to purge juries in certain cases. No
man in all the South, under thirty-five years of age, can be affected by
this provision, because every such man was too young when the
armies of the rebellion were recruited to be subject to the provision
complained of. As to the rest, the discretion is a wholesome one. But,
even if it were not, let me say in all kindness to southern Senators, it
was not wise to make it a part of this proceeding, and raise this
uproar in regard to it.
Even the purpose, in part already executed, to remove the old and
faithful officers of the Senate, even Union soldiers, that their places
may be snatched by others—to overturn an order of the Senate which
has existed for a quarter of a century, in order to grasp all the petty
places here, seems to me unwise. It is not wise, if you want to disarm
suspicion that you mean aggrandizing, gormandizing, unreasonable
things.
Viewing all these doings in the light of party advantage—advantage
to the party to which I belong, I could not deplore them; far from it;
but wishing the repose of the country, and the real, lasting, ultimate
welfare of the South, and wishing it from the bottom of my heart, I
believe they are flagrantly unwise, hurtfully injudicious.
What the South needs is to heal, build, mend, plant, sow. In short,
to go to work. Invite labor; cherish it; do not drive it out. Quit
proscription, both for opinion’s sake, and for color’s sake. Reform it
altogether. I know there are difficulties in the way. I know there is
natural repugnance in the way; but drop passion, drop sentiment
which signifies naught, and let the material prosperity and
civilization of your land advance. Do not give so much energy, so
much restless, sleepless activity, to an attempt so soon to get
possession once more, and dominate and rule the country. There is
room enough at the national board, and it is not needed, it is not
decorous, plainly speaking, that the South should be the MacGregor
at the table, and that the head of the table should be wherever he sits.
For a good many reasons, it is not worth while to insist upon it.
Mr. President, one of Rome’s famous legends stands in these
words: “Let what each man thinks of the Republic be written on his
brow.” I have spoken in the spirit of this injunction. Meaning offence
to no man, and holding ill-will to no man, because he comes from the
South, or because he differs with me in political opinion, I have
spoken frankly, but with malice toward none.
This session, and the bill pending, are acts in a partisan and
political enterprise. This debate, begun after a caucus had defined
and clenched the position of every man in the majority, has not been
waged to convince anybody here. It has resounded to fire the
democratic heart, to sound a blast to the cohorts of party, to beat the
long-roll, and set the squadrons in the field. That is its object, as
plainly to be seen as the ultimate object of the attempted overthrow
of laws.
Political speeches having been thus ordained, I have discussed
political themes, and with ill-will to no portion of the country but
good will toward every portion of it, I have with candor spoken
somewhat of my thoughts of the duties and dangers of the hour.
[Applause on the floor and in the galleries.]
Lincoln’s Speech at Gettysburg.
“Four-score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this
continent, a new Nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
“Now, we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that
Nation, or any Nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long
endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come
to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those,
who here gave their lives that that Nation might live. It is altogether
fitting and proper that we should do this.
“But, in a large sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—
we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who
struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add
or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we SAY
here, but it can never forget what they DID here. It is for us the living,
rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who
fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be
here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these
honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this Nation,
under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that Government
of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from
this earth.”
Speech of Hon. John M. Broomall, of
Pennsylvania,
On the Civil Rights Bill. House of Representatives, March 8, 1866.

Mr. Speaker, it is alleged that this species of legislation will widen
the breach existing between the two sections of the country, will
offend our southern brethren. Do not gentlemen know that those
who are most earnestly asking this legislation are our southern
brethren themselves.
They are imploring us to protect them against the conquered
enemies of the country, who notwithstanding their surrender, have
managed, through their skill or our weakness, to seize nearly all the
conquered territory.
This is not the first instance in the world’s history in which all that
had been gained by hard fighting was lost by bad diplomacy.
But they, whose feelings are entitled to so much consideration in
the estimation of those who urge this argument, are not our southern
brethren, but the southern brethren of our political opponents; the
conquered rebels, pardoned and unpardoned; traitors priding
themselves upon their treason.
These people are fastidious. The ordinary terms of the English
language must be perverted to suit their tastes. Though they
surrendered in open and public war, they are not to be treated as
prisoners. Though beaten in the last ditch of the last fortification,
they are not to be called a conquered people. The decision of the
forum of their own choosing is to be explained away into
meaningless formality for their benefit. Though guilty of treason,
murder, arson, and all the crimes in the calendar, they are “our
southern brethren.” The entire decalogue must be suspended lest it
should offend these polished candidates for the contempt and
execration of posterity.
Out of deference to the feelings of these sensitive gentlemen, an
executive construction must be given to the word “loyalty,” so that it
shall embrace men who only are not hanged because they have been
pardoned, and who only did not destroy the Government because
they could not. Out of deference to the feelings of these sensitive
gentlemen, too, a distinguished public functionary, once the
champion of the rights of man, a leader in the cause of human
progress, a statesman whose keen foreknowledge could point out the
“irrepressible conflict between slavery and freedom,” cannot now see
that treason and loyalty are uncompromising antagonisms.
It is charged against us that the wheels of Government are stopped
by our refusal to admit the representatives of these southern
communities. When we complain that Europe is underselling us in
our markets, and demand protection for the American laborer, we
are told to “admit the southern Senators and Representatives.” When
we complain that excessive importations are impoverishing the
country, and rapidly bringing on financial ruin, we are told to “admit
the southern Senators and Representatives.” When we complain that
an inflated currency is making the rich richer, and the poor poorer,
keeping the prices of even the necessaries of life beyond the reach of
widows and orphans who are living upon fixed incomes, the
stereotyped answer comes, “Admit the southern Senators and
Representatives.” When we demand a tax upon cotton to defray the
enormous outlay made in dethroning that usurping “king of the
world,” still the answer comes, and the executive parrots everywhere
repeat it, “Admit the southern Senators and Representatives.”
The mind of the man who can see in that prescription a remedy for
all political and social diseases must be curiously constituted. Would
these Senators and Representatives vote a tax upon cotton? Would
they protect American industry by increasing duties? Would they
prevent excessive importations? To believe this requires as
unquestioning a faith as to believe in the sudden conversion of whole
communities from treason to loyalty.
We are blocking the wheels of Government! Why, the Government
has managed to get along for four years, not only without the aid of
the Southern Senators and Representatives, but against their efforts
to destroy it; and in the mean time has crushed a rebellion that
would have destroyed any other Government under heaven. Surely
the nation can do without the services of these men, at least during
the time required to examine their claims and to protect by
appropriate legislation our Southern brethren. None but a Democrat
would think of consulting the wolf about what safeguard should be
thrown around the flock.
Those who advocate the admission of the Senators and
Representatives from the States lately reclaimed from the rebellion,
as a means of protecting the loyal men in those States and as a
substitute for the system of legislation of which this bill is part, well
know that the majority in both Houses of Congress ardently desire
the full recognition of those States, and only ask that the rights and
interests of the truly loyal men in those States shall be first
satisfactorily secured.
Much useless controversy has been had about the legal status of
those States. There is no difference between the two parties of the
country on that point. The actual point of difference is this: the
Democrats affiliate with their old political friends in the South, the
late rebels, the friends and followers of Breckinridge, Lee, and Davis.
The Union majority, on the other hand, naturally affiliate with the
loyal men in the South, the men who have always supported the
Government against Breckinridge, Lee, and Davis. Each party wants
the South reconstructed in the hands of its own “southern brethren.”
In short, the northern party corresponding with the loyal men of
the South ask that the legitimate results of Grant’s victory shall be
carried out, while the northern party corresponding with the rebels
of the South ask that things should be considered as if Lee had been
the conqueror, or at least as if there had been a drawn battle, without
victory on either side.
This brings the rights of those in whose behalf the opponents of
the bill under consideration are acting directly in question, and in
order to limit down the field of controversy as far as possible, let us
inquire how far all parties agree upon the legal status of the
communities lately in rebellion. Now, the meanest of all
controversies is that which comes from dialectics. Where the
disputants attach different meanings to the same word their time is
worse than thrown away. I have always looked upon the question
whether the States are in or out of the Union as only worthy of the
schoolmen of the middle ages, who could write volumes upon a mere
verbal quibble. The disputants would agree if they were compelled to
use the word “State” in the same sense. I will endeavor to avoid this
trifling.
All parties agree that at the close of the rebellion the people of
North Carolina, for example, had been “deprived of all civil
government.” The President, in his proclamation of May 29, 1865,
tells the people of North Carolina this in so many words, and he tells
the people of the other rebel States the same thing in his several
proclamations to them. This includes the Conservatives and
Democrats, who, however they may disagree, at last agree in this,
that the President shall do their thinking.
The Republicans subscribe to this doctrine, though they differ in
their modes of expressing it. Some say that those States have ceased
to possess any of the rights and powers of government as States of
the Union. Others say, with the late lamented President, that “those
States are out of practical relations with the Government.”
Others hold that the State organizations are out of the Union. And
still others that the rebels are conquered, and therefore that their
organizations are at the will of the conqueror.
The President has hit upon a mode of expression which embraces
concisely all these ideas. He says that the people of those States were,
by the progress of the rebellion and by its termination, “deprived of
all civil government.”
One step further. All parties agree that the people of these States,
being thus disorganized for all State purposes, are still at the election
of the government, citizens of the United States, and as such, as far
as they have not been disqualified by treason, ought to be allowed to
form their own State governments, subject to the requirements of the
Constitution of the United States.
Still one step further. All parties agree that this cannot be done by
mere unauthorized congregations of the people, but that the time,
place and manner must be prescribed by some department of the
Government, according to the argument of Mr. Webster and the
spirit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Luther vs. Borden, 7
Howard, page 1.
Yet another step in the series of propositions. All parties agree that
as Congress was not in session at the close of the rebellion, the
President, as Commander-in-Chief, was bound to take possession of
the conquered country and establish such government as was
necessary.
Thus far all is harmonious; but now the divergence begins. At the
commencement of the present session of Congress three-fourths of
both Houses held that when the people of the States are “deprived of
all civil government,” and when, therefore, it becomes necessary to
prescribe the time, place, and manner in and by which they shall
organize themselves again into States while the President may take
temporary measures, yet only the law-making power of the
Government is competent to the full accomplishment of the task. In
other words, that only Congress can enable citizens of the United
States to create States. I have said that at the commencement of the
session three-fourths of both houses held this opinion. The
proportion is smaller now, and by a judicious use of executive
patronage it may become still smaller; but the truth of the
proposition will not be affected if every Representative and Senator
should be manipulated into denying it.
On the other hand, the remaining fourth, composed of the supple
Democracy and its accessions, maintain that this State-creating
power is vested in the President alone, and that he has already
exercised it.
The holy horror with which our opponents affect to contemplate
the doctrine of destruction of States is that much political hypocrisy.
Every man who asks the recognition of the existing local
governments in the South thereby commits himself to that doctrine.
The only possible claim that can be set up in favor of the existing
governments is based upon the theory that the old ones have been
destroyed. The present organizations sprang up at the bidding of the
President after the conquest among a people who, he said, had been
“deprived of all civil government.”
If the President’s “experiment” had resulted in organizing the
southern communities in loyal hands, the majority in Congress
would have found no difficulty in indorsing it and giving it the
necessary efficiency by legislative enactment.
In this case, too, the President never would have denied the power
of Congress in the premises. He never would have set up the theory
that the citizens of the United States, through their representatives,
are not to be consulted when those who have once broken faith with
them ask to have the compact renewed.
Our opponents have no love for the President. They called him a
usurper and a tyrant in Tennessee. They ridiculed him as a negro
“Moses.” They tried to kill him, and failing that, they accused him of
being privy to the murder of his predecessor. But when his
“experiment” at reconstruction was found to result in favor of their
friends, the rebels, then they hung themselves about his neck like so
many mill-stones, and tried to damn him to eternal infamy by
indorsing his policy. Will they succeed? Will he shake them off, or go
down with them?
But let us suffer these discordant elements to settle their own
terms of combinations as best they may. The final result cannot be
doubtful.
If ten righteous men were needed to save Sodom, even Andrew
Johnson will find it impossible to save the Democratic party.
Our path of duty is plain before us. Let us pass this bill and such
others as may be necessary to secure protection to the loyal men of
the South. If our political opponents thwart our purposes in this, let
us go to the country upon that issue.
I am by no means an advocate of extensive punishment, either in
the way of hanging or confiscation, though some of both might be
salutary. I do not ask that full retribution be enforced against those
who have so grievously sinned. I am willing to make forgiveness the
rule and punishment the exception; yet I have my ultimatum. I
might excuse the pardon of the traitors Lee and Davis, even after the
hanging of Wirz, who but obeyed their orders, orders which he would
have been shot for disobeying. I might excuse the sparing of the
master after killing the dog whose bite but carried with it the venom
engendered in the master’s soul. I might look calmly upon a
constituency ground down by taxation, and tell the complainants
that they have neither remedy nor hope of vengeance upon the
authors of their wrongs. I might agree to turn unpityingly from the
mother whose son fell in the Wilderness, and the widow whose
husband was starved at Andersonville, and tell them that in the
nature of things retributive justice is denied them, and that the
murderers of their kindred may yet sit in the councils of their
country; yet even I have my ultimatum. I might consent that the
glorious deeds of the last five years should be blotted from the
country’s history; that the trophies won on a hundred battle-fields,
the sublime visible evidence of the heroic devotion of America’s
citizen soldiery, should be burned on the altar of reconciliation. I
might consent that the cemetery at Gettysburg should be razed to the
ground; that its soil should be submitted to the plow, and that the
lamentation of the bereaved should give place to the lowing of cattle.
But there is a point beyond which I shall neither be forced nor
persuaded. I will never consent that the government shall desert its
allies in the South and surrender their rights and interests to the
enemy, and in this I will make no distinction of caste or color either
among friends or foes.
The people of the South were not all traitors. Among them were
knees that never bowed to the Baal of secession, lips that never
kissed his image. Among the fastness of the mountains, in the rural
districts, far from the contagion of political centres, the fires of
patriotism still burned, sometimes in the higher walks of life, oftener
in obscure hamlets, and still oftener under skins as black as the
hearts of those who claimed to own them.
These people devoted all they had to their country. The homes of
some have been confiscated, and they are now fugitives from the
scenes that gladdened their childhood. Some were cast into
dungeons for refusing to fire upon their country’s flag, and still
others bear the marks of stripes inflicted for giving bread and water
to the weary soldier of the Republic, and aiding the fugitive to escape
the penalty of the disloyalty to treason. If the God of nations listened
to the prayers that ascended from so many altars during those
eventful years, it was to the prayers of these people.
Sir, we talked of patriotism in our happy northern homes, and
claimed credit for the part we acted; but if the history of these people
shall ever be written, it will make us blush that we ever professed to
love our country.
The government now stands guard over the lives and fortunes of
these people. They are imploring us not to yield them up without
condition to those into whose hands recent events have committed
the destinies of the unfortunate South. A nation which could thus
withdraw its protection from such allies, at such a time, without their
full and free consent, could neither hope for the approval of mankind
nor the blessing of heaven.
Speech, of Hon. Charles A. Eldridge, of
Wisconsin.
Against the Civil Rights Bill, in the House of Representatives, March

2, 1866.
Mr. Speaker: I thought yesterday that I would discuss this measure
at some length; but I find myself this morning very unwell; and I
shall therefore make only a few remarks, suggesting some objections
to the bill.
I look upon the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, as one of the series of
measures rising out of a feeling of distrust and hatred on the part of
certain individuals, not only in this House, but throughout the
country, toward these persons who formerly held slaves. I had hoped
that long before this time the people of this country would have come
to the conclusion that the subject of slavery and the questions
connected with it had already sufficiently agitated this country. I had
hoped that now, when the war is over, when peace has been restored,
when in every State of the Union the institution of slavery has been
freely given up, its abolition acquiesced in, and the Constitution of
the United States amended in accordance with that idea, this subject
would cease to haunt us as it is made to do in the various measures
which are constantly being here introduced.
This bill is, it appears to me, one of the most insidious and
dangerous of the various measures which have been directed against
the interest of the people of this country. It is another of the
measures designed to take away the essential rights of the State. I
know that when I speak of States and State rights, I enter upon
unpopular subjects. But, sir, whatever other gentlemen may think, I
hold that the rights of the States are the rights of the Union, that the
rights of the States and the liberty of the States are essential to the
liberty of the individual citizen. * * *

(Download PDF) Juvenile Delinquency The Core 4th Edition Siegel Test Bank Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Download PDF) Juvenile Delinquency The Core 4th Edition Siegel Test Bank Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Juvenile Delinquency The Core 4th

Edition Siegel Test Bank

Juvenile Delinquency The Core 6th Edition Siegel Test

Juvenile Delinquency Theory Practice and Law 11th

Criminology The Core 4th Edition Siegel Test Bank

Juvenile Delinquency 9th Edition Thompson Test Bank

Juvenile Delinquency 9th Edition Bartollas Test Bank

Juvenile Delinquency in a Diverse Society 2nd Edition

Marketing The Core Canadian 4th Edition Kerin Test Bank

Corporate Finance The Core 4th Edition Berk Test Bank

1. Which of the following children is least likely to live in a two-parent household?

2. Which of the following children is most likely to live in a two-parent household?

3. Which of the following statements about the American family is false?

4. Today about ___________ of African American children live in a two-parent household.

5. About 90 percent of day care providers:

6. What percentage of American children currently live in poverty?

16. Psychologists suggest that maltreatment encourages children to use ________________ as a

ANS: F REF: Page 169 OBJ: 7-5

ANS: F REF: Page 170 OBJ: 7-2

ANS: T REF: Page 170 OBJ: 7-2

ANS: T REF: Page 170 OBJ: 7-2

ANS: F REF: Page 173 OBJ: 7-3

ANS: F REF: Page 174 OBJ: 7-3

ANS: F REF: Page 175 OBJ: 7-3

ANS: F REF: Page 176 OBJ: 7-3

ANS: T REF: Page 177 OBJ: 7-4

ANS: T REF: Page 177 OBJ: 7-7

ANS: T REF: Page 179 OBJ: 7-4

ANS: T REF: Page 179 OBJ: 7-4

ANS: T REF: Page 180 OBJ: 7-7

ANS: T REF: Page 181 OBJ: 7-7

ANS: T REF: Page 182 OBJ: 7-7

ANS: F REF: Page 184 OBJ: 7-7

ANS: T REF: Page 185 OBJ: 7-7

ANS: T REF: Page 186 OBJ: 7-8

ANS: F REF: Page 188 OBJ: 7-8

ANS: F REF: Page 194 OBJ: 7-10

REF: Page 173 OBJ: 7-2

2. The term ______________________________ is used to refer to an environment of discord

ANS: intrafamily violence

REF: Page 176 OBJ: 7-3

3. _______________________ refers to families in which parents are able to integrate their

ANS: Parental efficacy

REF: Page 177 OBJ: 7-2

ANS: Resource dilution

REF: Page 178 OBJ: 7-3

ANS: Emotional abuse

REF: Page 181 OBJ: 7-7

ANS: physical neglect

REF: Page 182 OBJ: 7-7

REF: Page 182 OBJ: 7-7

REF: Page 182 OBJ: 7-7

9. The ________________________ refers to non-accidental physical injury of children by their

ANS: battered child syndrome

REF: Page 182 OBJ: 7-7

REF: Page 185 OBJ: 7-7

ANS: guardian ad litem

REF: Page 186 OBJ: 7-8

ANS: advisement hearing

REF: Page 187 OBJ: 7-8

ANS: pretrial conference

REF: Page 187 OBJ: 7-8

ANS: disposition hearing