1. What is the general in the particular with regards to abuse in this article? The article shows statistically that if you are male and have been a victim of violence or family violence you have a higher risk of becoming an abuser compared to someone who has not been victimized. And those family violence victims have a higher incidence of developing mental health issues and personality disorders, abuse drugs or alcohol, or have been abandoned as children.
2. What is the strange in the familiar? The article shows how witnessing or being victimized by violence as a child or adolescent changed the perception of these offenders thinking and patterns of acceptable behaviors which made violence against another person to be acceptable practice.
3. What might this article add to understanding global offenders? I think that it would be interesting to see how the statistics would change once the offenders went through extensive therapy. Would the therapy break or improve the cycle of violence? And by how much?
4. What does this issue identify about potential social marginalization? Because these offenders have been victimized themselves they have become the perpetrator as this is what they know to be the norm for them. In times of crisis or change they would do what they know until they know better. Unfortunately the pattern of behavior has changed their view of what is normal behavior and they lack the skills to deal with change or crisis without violence. Thus turning a personal problem into a public issue.
5. What does this article identify about potential social crisis? The potential social crisis in this article is that if the pattern of family violence is not broken it will be an inherited personality trait for the children who witness or are victimized by it, leading to more violent crimes and more dysfunction in families.
6. After reading this article,...