RIGHTS OF CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS: A CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children of incarcerated parents are frequently considered as forgotten and victims of (Joan P., 20015). In India, children under the age of six are frequently placed into prison custody with their mothers (Robertson O., 2008). According to Greenfield and Snell, roughly 7 out of 10 women in India who are incarcerated have a kid under the age of 18. These vulnerable children endure numerous challenges, and their specific requirements necessitate special attention. As a result, the authors of this study attempted to investigate the phenomenon of parental incarceration and its impact on children of incarcerated parents in light of legal provisions designed to protect such children, as well as devise legal solutions to meet the needs of these children and their families. The writers conducted their research using a doctrinal approach and material from secondary sources. The article delves into a comparative analysis of the legal provisions made for children of detained parents in many nations throughout the world, including Australia, Canada, China, to identify the legal and social problems involved. The study then focuses on the legislative safeguards in place in India to protect such children. A constitutional perspective is also taken on the matter, and the need for a separate law in India to safeguard children whose parents are incarcerated is recommended. It is also proposed that certain elements of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 be extended to such children. The ultimate goal is to refocus the legal justice system's approach to incarcerated people's families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".