But, see, there's this thing called negligence. It's a rather unusual crime in that mens rea is not required- you can think you're doing the right thing but still be negligent, because, to be short about it, you did something really stupid and someone else suffered for it. Kind of like this case- actually, exactly like this case.
My original point stands though. None of us know the whole case and only going by what we read in this article. There is a full investigation going on. They have more details that I wish we could use.
We shouldn't be claiming these parents did anything wrong cause we don't have the full story. Seems like a lot of people here are really to get the torches and pitchforks based on the limited amount information we have collected.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the stone that the builder refused I am the visual, the inspiration, that made lady sing the blues I'm the spark that makes your idea bright The same spark that lights the dark so that you can know your left from your right I am the ballot in your box; the bullet in the gun That inner glow that lets you know to call your brother "son" The story that just begun, the promise of what's to come And I'mma remain a soldier til' the war is won
I think that if a Native tribe of somekind would do the exact same thing, no-one would have said a word. So I don't think we should accuse them with neglect. Their "culture" just isn't very medically developed. I think it would be best when we would use our effort to give medical attention to the people that want it(like in Africa, or maybe some native tribes) If everyone that wants it has it we can start thinking about the people that don't want it.
Possibly, but how do we know that the girl herself didn't want medical care. Most people think she had a right to it just as much as anyone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
I think that if a Native tribe of somekind would do the exact same thing, no-one would have said a word. So I don't think we should accuse them with neglect. Their "culture" just isn't very medically developed. I think it would be best when we would use our effort to give medical attention to the people that want it(like in Africa, or maybe some native tribes) If everyone that wants it has it we can start thinking about the people that don't want it.
But see, the issue there is that if this hypothetical "native tribe" didn't have access to the kind of medical technology available to us (in, say, every hospital ever) then their attempts to heal through prayer would represent their best effort. In this case, though, the parents could have very easily taken their child to a doctor - but they consciously chose not to. Instead of doing what they knew could very definitely have saved their daughter's life, they chose to gamble on something with a very low percentage of success. That's negligence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Xantcha, Phyrexian Reject
Jodah, Archmage Eternal
Tovolar, Howlpack Alpha
Pivlic, Orzhov Informant
Crixizix, Master Engineer
Feather, Boros Peacekeeper
Marisi Coilbreaker
O-Kagachi
Gix, Phyrexian Praetor
Karn, Father of Machines
Yawgmoth, Father of Machines
Serra, Mother of All Angels
Tevesh Szat, Doom of Fools
Leshrac the Nightwalker
Jeska, the Thrice-Touched
Elspeth Returned
Crucius the Mad
Taysir the Infinite
Urza's Head (Unglued!)
In what way is your mini-rant about disciplinary methods "another side" to the issue at hand?
Well from the title of the tread and the conversation, this topic is about child abuse and it being protected in 44 states. My "mini-rant" was pointing out there are situations that are the very opposite. Where the girl in the OP wasnt protected enuff. The family in my "mini-rant" was subjected to OVER protection. That is a complete contrast to not enuff protection, or last I checked it was. My point was over protecting a child can be as bad as not protecting them enuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
__________________ Thanks Mr. Stuff. for my awesome banner and avatar!
Playing these In T2! Hippy created!
R Explosive Doll R W Untouchable Knights W B No Sacrifice, No Victory! B
Well from the title of the tread and the conversation, this topic is about child abuse and it being protected in 44 states. My "mini-rant" was pointing out there are situations that are the very opposite. Where the girl in the OP wasnt protected enuff. The family in my "mini-rant" was subjected to OVER protection. That is a complete contrast to not enuff protection, or last I checked it was. My point was over protecting a child can be as bad as not protecting them enuff.
Well, the topic is about parental neglect, which legally is identified as being related to (but distinct from) child abuse. (Specific definitions can be found here: http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/defining/can.cfm)
With regards to the matter of corporal punishment, i.e. spanking, being regarded as physical abuse, I would say two things.
Firstly, I have two children, six and seven years old. They are very well-behaved, admired by family and friends for their politeness. Over the course of their lives I delivered a total of three spankings; and I can say with complete honesty that those instances all came at times when I was emotionally distressed or psychologically exhausted, and that they accomplished nothing good in regards to discipline. It is absolutely not necessary to cause pain to a child (or any person, for that matter) in order to modify behavior. (Of course pain may get short-term results, as when obtaining confessions through torture; but that is a whole other issue). Genuine child discipline is rooted in the patience and self-control of the parent, and meets no occasion for lashing out, physically or verbally, against a far more vulnerable human being.
That being said, even the most loving parents are fallible and have their limits. And I agree that it is excessive for child protective services to remove a child from a home on the basis of one instance of spanking. Yet legally speaking, I do not believe it is wrong to say that spanking does in fact constitute physical abuse (although again, legally speaking, the spanking would have to leave at least minor visible bruising in order to be prosecuted as such). Really the heart of the problem, when it comes to hitting children for ostensibly disciplinary reasons, is this: where do you draw a hard line between discipline and abuse? And it's wise for the law to err on the side of caution in favor of the child.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
PRP2: Spanking isn't as horrible as people think. Its goal isn't to wantonly cause pain and suffering but rather to get the child to associate certain actions with a negative consequence. These days children seem much less inclined to listen to their parents and what was an effective non-corporal punishment when I was a kid is laughable(i.e. no TV, no going outside, etc). My mother soanked me alot as a child but it was the direct result of her own upbringing, her youth, and my...ummm...difficult disposition(we didn't know I had ADHD until I was 20 and it explained alot of my behaviors as a child). She realizes now that spanking me as much as she did was wrong, even though I wasn't really affected by it, and spanks my brother much, much less than she spanked me as a result. From what I've seen most parents resort to spanking when they're relatively new at parenting but give it up later in favor of less physically intensive, more mental punishments.
On the issue of the line between discipline and abuse: I have very personal knowledge about this. I never got the impression that my mother was displeased or unhappy with me when she spanked me but rather disappointed by my actions. My aunt is another story. She spanked my cousins much more than my mom spanked me and it was always accompanied by a litany of their faults. She made them feel like she was suffering more than them, not because she loved them but because she had to take time out of her day(which mostly consisted of sitting around and watching them do all the work) to spank them. To this day my aunt doesn't understand why my cousins moved away and talk to her as infrequently as possible. For me, the line is the child's understanding of why s/he is being spanked.
PRP2: Spanking isn't as horrible as people think. Its goal isn't to wantonly cause pain and suffering but rather to get the child to associate certain actions with a negative consequence.
The goal of corporal punishment is not in question, but rather its effect.
These days children seem much less inclined to listen to their parents and what was an effective non-corporal punishment when I was a kid is laughable(i.e. no TV, no going outside, etc).
On what grounds do you say this? Children have both needs and wants; and it is always within a parent's purview to grant or deny her child's non-essential desires as a means of enforcing discipline. If withholding privileges seems ineffective, perhaps it is because the parents in question:
1.) fail to stick to their guns and cave in to whining, pouting, pleading etc.
2.) are so clueless about their childrens' actual attitudes that they withhold "privileges" which the children don't much care about having in the first place.
3.) have a warped understanding of the distinction between "needs" and "wants" (Oh, we can't take away our daughter's cell phone; she would absolutely die without it!)
My mother soanked me alot as a child but it was the direct result of her own upbringing, her youth, and my...ummm...difficult disposition(we didn't know I had ADHD until I was 20 and it explained alot of my behaviors as a child).
This is a good point: if a child is especially difficult or intractable, it is certainly proper to take that child in for a psychological evaluation.
From what I've seen most parents resort to spanking when they're relatively new at parenting but give it up later in favor of less physically intensive, more mental punishments.
Perhaps because they've learned from experience that spanking doesn't quite work, or isn't quite right?
On the issue of the line between discipline and abuse... For me, the line is the child's understanding of why s/he is being spanked.
And how are we to gauge this understanding? If you ask the child point blank, he'll just parrot off whatever he's been told.
"Bobby, why'd you get spanked?"
"Because I was naughty."
Now let's ratchet it up several notches:
"Bobby, why did you get your hand shoved onto that hot burner?"
"Because I'm a bad boy."
When you have (from the outside) a clear cut case of child abuse, from the inside, the effect of that abuse is to warp the mind of the child so that s/he believes that the abuse is in fact warranted. This is why we cannot rely on a child's understanding of the situation in order to establish whether or not abuse is taking place.
And again, I'm not saying that the occassional spanking is evidence of an essentially abusive relationship. However, I believe the law is right to say that any striking of a child is unlawful; but there must be rational and compassionate degrees of sanction. (Theft of a candy bar is far less serious than theft of an automobile, but just as illegal.) Provided there's no evidence of any worse, a slap on a child's butt should earn a parent no more than the proverbial "slap on the wrist."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Well my comment was by no means to take this so far off topic. I was simply making a comparison between the OP story about a child not being protected enuff to my friends personal experience of over protection. I understand that the topic was more to the protection of the parents rights. I stand by my oppinion though. I am glad some parents can raise a child that always behaves and always responds to non corprol punishment. I am the parent of a 15 year old boy who untill he started high school this year was a handful. Bad grades lies destruction of property. When taking away a childs wants(cell phone, video games,TV) doesnt work, a spanking is a reasonable reaction. I have seen the children of parents that try the method you impy works to no avail and there children just run over them cause they know the worst that will happen is they wont get to play video games or no dessert. With some children I would agree that your denial of wants punishment would work fine, on others however it simply wont.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
__________________ Thanks Mr. Stuff. for my awesome banner and avatar!
Playing these In T2! Hippy created!
R Explosive Doll R W Untouchable Knights W B No Sacrifice, No Victory! B
I don't usually put in my 2cents because I'm lazy and just like reading these debates.
This actually happened in here (In NZ) a couple of years back, I think with some Jehovah's witnesses and they were done for Negligence and failure to provide sufficient parenting (something of that description) and received prison terms. The whole country at the time, again from what I remember, was against the parents and agreed with the law.
Being non-religious myself I fail to see how these people would not want to go to the doctors. Because as pointed out before any religious person would justify doctors as being put there by god to help out. The parents claim that their child was getting better before she died. Does anyone know the symptoms of Diabetes do they get better/worse? I think these are important things in deciding who's to blame.
Well, I think the point of Jehova's Witnesses is that they believe that human blood should not mix. The accommodation of the belief is fine, I think, for rational and consenting adults (liberty means that you can harm yourself, too, and the State cannot stop you), but it breaks down for children, because it is difficult for us to see children as rationally choosing not to have blood transfusions.
In all honesty, I am rather taken aback that we have to talk about spanking.
Firstly, I have two children, six and seven years old. They are very well-behaved, admired by family and friends for their politeness. Over the course of their lives I delivered a total of three spankings; and I can say with complete honesty that those instances all came at times when I was emotionally distressed or psychologically exhausted, and that they accomplished nothing good in regards to discipline. It is absolutely not necessary to cause pain to a child (or any person, for that matter) in order to modify behavior. (Of course pain may get short-term results, as when obtaining confessions through torture; but that is a whole other issue). Genuine child discipline is rooted in the patience and self-control of the parent, and meets no occasion for lashing out, physically or verbally, against a far more vulnerable human being.
I appreciate your candor, and you are quite right: the infliction of physical pain to a child is not justified.
PRP2: Spanking isn't as horrible as people think. Its goal isn't to wantonly cause pain and suffering but rather to get the child to associate certain actions with a negative consequence.
Actually it is. In fact, I think that non-violent parenting advocates understate the case. Spanking is domestic abuse. When a man slaps his wife, it's called battery; however, when a man slaps his child, it's called parenting. It is discouraged by many professional psychological and pediatric associations. Spanking justifies forcible intervention.
These days children seem much less inclined to listen to their parents and what was an effective non-corporal punishment when I was a kid is laughable(i.e. no TV, no going outside, etc).
What do you mean by "these days"? You make a subjective claim, and you have to do better than that if you're going to take the position that the use of physical violence against children isn't that bad.
My mother soanked me alot as a child but it was the direct result of her own upbringing, her youth, and my...ummm...difficult disposition(we didn't know I had ADHD until I was 20 and it explained alot of my behaviors as a child).
No. It is never your fault for getting beaten.
And, on a side note, my dad was beaten by his father as a child, and it is that experience and a basic moral intuition that prevented him from raising either me or my brother by the rod.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Actually it is. In fact, I think that non-violent parenting advocates understate the case. Spanking is domestic abuse. When a man slaps his wife, it's called battery; however, when a man slaps his child, it's called parenting. It is discouraged by many professional psychological and pediatric associations. Spanking justifies forcible intervention.
And when a woman slaps her husband it's a lover's quarrel and when a kid hits his father he's acting out. Someone under 18 can attack someone over 18, but if that person defends themselves by striking back, they go to jail automatically.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
And when a woman slaps her husband it's a lover's quarrel
If the husband calls the police, it is domestic abuse. The fact that husbands rarely do does not indicate that there is any kind of legal hypocrisy going on.
and when a kid hits his father he's acting out. Someone under 18 can attack someone over 18, but if that person defends themselves by striking back, they go to jail automatically.
The idea is that a child does not know any better. An adult does.
And when a woman slaps her husband it's a lover's quarrel and when a kid hits his father he's acting out. Someone under 18 can attack someone over 18, but if that person defends themselves by striking back, they go to jail automatically.
I'll assume you're talking in a strictly domestic context here, and as pertains to minors without criminal records? Because clearly, if my wife and I are out for a walk and some 16 year-old miscreant tries to swipe my wife's purse, I'm not going to ask for I.D. before I go all George Foreman on him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I'll assume you're talking in a strictly domestic context here, and as pertains to minors without criminal records? Because clearly, if my wife and I are out for a walk and some 16 year-old miscreant tries to swipe my wife's purse, I'm not going to ask for I.D. before I go all George Foreman on him.
No, in fact, I'm not. If you hit that kid, you'll be going to jail.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Making a bad choice not necessary neglect. Parents often make bad choices. In the eyes of the parents they thought they were taking the right course of action.
This was the exact reasoning used by the lady in Texas (I think) that drowned her children. In her eyes, it was the right course of action.
Sorry, that excuse doesn't work in any situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
Someone under 18 can attack someone over 18, but if that person defends themselves by striking back, they go to jail automatically.
No. That's not the way it works. If someone attacks you, you're justified in defending yourself by any means proportional to the situation, up to and including lethal force.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Well, feel free to show me the laws that show that. I've been searching for awhile and I can't seem to find the actual laws, except one in montana... but there someone commits assault if they cause bodily injury to another (regardless of self-defence).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
To clarify what I was getting at, there must be a legal distinction made between striking a minor under the pretense of rendering discipline and striking a minor in self defense. There are plenty of violent offenders in juvenile detention centers. As far as I'm aware, if someone comes at me with a knife or other weapon, I have the legal right to defend myself with maximum necessary force regardless of the attacker's age. If someone attempts to rob me, I have the right to use maximum necessary force to deter him.
Obviously there must be a "reasonable person" contingency when assessing necessary force; supposing an eight-year old came at me with a pocket knife, it would probably be reasonable to knock him on his butt and take away the knife, unreasonable to beat him senseless.
If the law does not in fact operate in such a fashion, I should very much like to know about it. I should be very interested to know the finer details about laws that would penalize me for using physical force to defend myself from criminal predation when the predator happens to be a minor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Well, feel free to show me the laws that show that. I've been searching for awhile and I can't seem to find the actual laws, except one in montana... but there someone commits assault if they cause bodily injury to another (regardless of self-defence).
When I said "justified" I meant morally justified. Frankly, the law is very uninteresting to me. I am glad, at least, to see that my home state is slightly more reasonable than the others with respect to this issue.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
This was the exact reasoning used by the lady in Texas (I think) that drowned her children. In her eyes, it was the right course of action.
Sorry, that excuse doesn't work in any situation.
That's not a excuse but a reason, and yes it does work. That texas case you speak of was a miscarriage of justice. The women was on anti-pyscotics for the first time in her life during the trial.
I am the stone that the builder refused I am the visual, the inspiration, that made lady sing the blues I'm the spark that makes your idea bright The same spark that lights the dark so that you can know your left from your right I am the ballot in your box; the bullet in the gun That inner glow that lets you know to call your brother "son" The story that just begun, the promise of what's to come And I'mma remain a soldier til' the war is won
When I said "justified" I meant morally justified. Frankly, the law is very uninteresting to me. I am glad, at least, to see that my home state is slightly more reasonable than the others with respect to this issue.
And it wasn't obvious that I was talking about the law and how I didn't agree with it?
"This is what the law says about <X>."
"You're wrong, <X> is morally justified."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
And it wasn't obvious that I was talking about the law and how I didn't agree with it?
"This is what the law says about <X>."
"You're wrong, <X> is morally justified."
I was taking the law, even as generally stupid as it is, to be rationally legislated enough that people can defend themselves with force. And it is the case. Just not to the degree either of us would like. In many states, you have a duty to retreat before using force. And there are often restrictions on how much force you can use. And unfortunately, the burden is always on the person who defends herself to prove her case. But the law does not say you can't defend yourself.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Maybe she should've been found not guilty by reason of insanity, but that doesn't mean that she didn't do something illegal. It means she wasn't in a state of mind to see the difference between right or wrong.
Just because these parents thought they were doing the right thing doesn't mean that what they did was right, nor does it mean that they shouldn't be held accountable for neglecting to get their child needed medical attention. Whether or not they thought it was right is completely and utterly irrelevent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
Well, feel free to show me the laws that show that. I've been searching for awhile and I can't seem to find the actual laws, except one in montana... but there someone commits assault if they cause bodily injury to another (regardless of self-defence).
I wouldn't imagine there are laws defining these situations in every state; however, it seems that most states take the position that if a minor is injured in an act of reasonable self-defense, then normal self-defense laws apply. The key word here, of course, is "reasonable". A ten year old kicking his father does not warrant physical recourse.
Incidentally, what is the purpose of this tangent?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There is no God and we are his prophets.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My original point stands though. None of us know the whole case and only going by what we read in this article. There is a full investigation going on. They have more details that I wish we could use.
We shouldn't be claiming these parents did anything wrong cause we don't have the full story. Seems like a lot of people here are really to get the torches and pitchforks based on the limited amount information we have collected.
Possibly, but how do we know that the girl herself didn't want medical care. Most people think she had a right to it just as much as anyone.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
But see, the issue there is that if this hypothetical "native tribe" didn't have access to the kind of medical technology available to us (in, say, every hospital ever) then their attempts to heal through prayer would represent their best effort. In this case, though, the parents could have very easily taken their child to a doctor - but they consciously chose not to. Instead of doing what they knew could very definitely have saved their daughter's life, they chose to gamble on something with a very low percentage of success. That's negligence.
Xantcha, Phyrexian Reject
Jodah, Archmage Eternal
Tovolar, Howlpack Alpha
Pivlic, Orzhov Informant
Crixizix, Master Engineer
Feather, Boros Peacekeeper
Marisi Coilbreaker
O-Kagachi
Gix, Phyrexian Praetor
Karn, Father of Machines
Yawgmoth, Father of Machines
Serra, Mother of All Angels
Tevesh Szat, Doom of Fools
Leshrac the Nightwalker
Jeska, the Thrice-Touched
Elspeth Returned
Crucius the Mad
Taysir the Infinite
Urza's Head (Unglued!)
Well from the title of the tread and the conversation, this topic is about child abuse and it being protected in 44 states. My "mini-rant" was pointing out there are situations that are the very opposite. Where the girl in the OP wasnt protected enuff. The family in my "mini-rant" was subjected to OVER protection. That is a complete contrast to not enuff protection, or last I checked it was. My point was over protecting a child can be as bad as not protecting them enuff.
__________________
Thanks Mr. Stuff. for my awesome banner and avatar!
Playing these In T2! Hippy created!
R Explosive Doll R
W Untouchable Knights W
B No Sacrifice, No Victory! B
Well, the topic is about parental neglect, which legally is identified as being related to (but distinct from) child abuse. (Specific definitions can be found here: http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/defining/can.cfm)
With regards to the matter of corporal punishment, i.e. spanking, being regarded as physical abuse, I would say two things.
Firstly, I have two children, six and seven years old. They are very well-behaved, admired by family and friends for their politeness. Over the course of their lives I delivered a total of three spankings; and I can say with complete honesty that those instances all came at times when I was emotionally distressed or psychologically exhausted, and that they accomplished nothing good in regards to discipline. It is absolutely not necessary to cause pain to a child (or any person, for that matter) in order to modify behavior. (Of course pain may get short-term results, as when obtaining confessions through torture; but that is a whole other issue). Genuine child discipline is rooted in the patience and self-control of the parent, and meets no occasion for lashing out, physically or verbally, against a far more vulnerable human being.
That being said, even the most loving parents are fallible and have their limits. And I agree that it is excessive for child protective services to remove a child from a home on the basis of one instance of spanking. Yet legally speaking, I do not believe it is wrong to say that spanking does in fact constitute physical abuse (although again, legally speaking, the spanking would have to leave at least minor visible bruising in order to be prosecuted as such). Really the heart of the problem, when it comes to hitting children for ostensibly disciplinary reasons, is this: where do you draw a hard line between discipline and abuse? And it's wise for the law to err on the side of caution in favor of the child.
On the issue of the line between discipline and abuse: I have very personal knowledge about this. I never got the impression that my mother was displeased or unhappy with me when she spanked me but rather disappointed by my actions. My aunt is another story. She spanked my cousins much more than my mom spanked me and it was always accompanied by a litany of their faults. She made them feel like she was suffering more than them, not because she loved them but because she had to take time out of her day(which mostly consisted of sitting around and watching them do all the work) to spank them. To this day my aunt doesn't understand why my cousins moved away and talk to her as infrequently as possible. For me, the line is the child's understanding of why s/he is being spanked.
The goal of corporal punishment is not in question, but rather its effect.
On what grounds do you say this? Children have both needs and wants; and it is always within a parent's purview to grant or deny her child's non-essential desires as a means of enforcing discipline. If withholding privileges seems ineffective, perhaps it is because the parents in question:
1.) fail to stick to their guns and cave in to whining, pouting, pleading etc.
2.) are so clueless about their childrens' actual attitudes that they withhold "privileges" which the children don't much care about having in the first place.
3.) have a warped understanding of the distinction between "needs" and "wants" (Oh, we can't take away our daughter's cell phone; she would absolutely die without it!)
This is a good point: if a child is especially difficult or intractable, it is certainly proper to take that child in for a psychological evaluation.
Perhaps because they've learned from experience that spanking doesn't quite work, or isn't quite right?
And how are we to gauge this understanding? If you ask the child point blank, he'll just parrot off whatever he's been told.
"Bobby, why'd you get spanked?"
"Because I was naughty."
Now let's ratchet it up several notches:
"Bobby, why did you get your hand shoved onto that hot burner?"
"Because I'm a bad boy."
When you have (from the outside) a clear cut case of child abuse, from the inside, the effect of that abuse is to warp the mind of the child so that s/he believes that the abuse is in fact warranted. This is why we cannot rely on a child's understanding of the situation in order to establish whether or not abuse is taking place.
And again, I'm not saying that the occassional spanking is evidence of an essentially abusive relationship. However, I believe the law is right to say that any striking of a child is unlawful; but there must be rational and compassionate degrees of sanction. (Theft of a candy bar is far less serious than theft of an automobile, but just as illegal.) Provided there's no evidence of any worse, a slap on a child's butt should earn a parent no more than the proverbial "slap on the wrist."
__________________
Thanks Mr. Stuff. for my awesome banner and avatar!
Playing these In T2! Hippy created!
R Explosive Doll R
W Untouchable Knights W
B No Sacrifice, No Victory! B
This actually happened in here (In NZ) a couple of years back, I think with some Jehovah's witnesses and they were done for Negligence and failure to provide sufficient parenting (something of that description) and received prison terms. The whole country at the time, again from what I remember, was against the parents and agreed with the law.
Being non-religious myself I fail to see how these people would not want to go to the doctors. Because as pointed out before any religious person would justify doctors as being put there by god to help out. The parents claim that their child was getting better before she died. Does anyone know the symptoms of Diabetes do they get better/worse? I think these are important things in deciding who's to blame.
In all honesty, I am rather taken aback that we have to talk about spanking.
I appreciate your candor, and you are quite right: the infliction of physical pain to a child is not justified.
Actually it is. In fact, I think that non-violent parenting advocates understate the case. Spanking is domestic abuse. When a man slaps his wife, it's called battery; however, when a man slaps his child, it's called parenting. It is discouraged by many professional psychological and pediatric associations. Spanking justifies forcible intervention.
What do you mean by "these days"? You make a subjective claim, and you have to do better than that if you're going to take the position that the use of physical violence against children isn't that bad.
No. It is never your fault for getting beaten.
And, on a side note, my dad was beaten by his father as a child, and it is that experience and a basic moral intuition that prevented him from raising either me or my brother by the rod.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
And when a woman slaps her husband it's a lover's quarrel and when a kid hits his father he's acting out. Someone under 18 can attack someone over 18, but if that person defends themselves by striking back, they go to jail automatically.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
If the husband calls the police, it is domestic abuse. The fact that husbands rarely do does not indicate that there is any kind of legal hypocrisy going on.
The idea is that a child does not know any better. An adult does.
I'll assume you're talking in a strictly domestic context here, and as pertains to minors without criminal records? Because clearly, if my wife and I are out for a walk and some 16 year-old miscreant tries to swipe my wife's purse, I'm not going to ask for I.D. before I go all George Foreman on him.
No, in fact, I'm not. If you hit that kid, you'll be going to jail.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
That depends on the state, actually, and the circumstances. Don't let's exaggerate.
This was the exact reasoning used by the lady in Texas (I think) that drowned her children. In her eyes, it was the right course of action.
Sorry, that excuse doesn't work in any situation.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Woopdedoo. I condemn domestic abuse no matter who does it.
No. That's not the way it works. If someone attacks you, you're justified in defending yourself by any means proportional to the situation, up to and including lethal force.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Obviously there must be a "reasonable person" contingency when assessing necessary force; supposing an eight-year old came at me with a pocket knife, it would probably be reasonable to knock him on his butt and take away the knife, unreasonable to beat him senseless.
If the law does not in fact operate in such a fashion, I should very much like to know about it. I should be very interested to know the finer details about laws that would penalize me for using physical force to defend myself from criminal predation when the predator happens to be a minor.
When I said "justified" I meant morally justified. Frankly, the law is very uninteresting to me. I am glad, at least, to see that my home state is slightly more reasonable than the others with respect to this issue.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
That's not a excuse but a reason, and yes it does work. That texas case you speak of was a miscarriage of justice. The women was on anti-pyscotics for the first time in her life during the trial.
read up on it
http://www.rense.com/general21/travesty.htm
And it wasn't obvious that I was talking about the law and how I didn't agree with it?
"This is what the law says about <X>."
"You're wrong, <X> is morally justified."
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I was taking the law, even as generally stupid as it is, to be rationally legislated enough that people can defend themselves with force. And it is the case. Just not to the degree either of us would like. In many states, you have a duty to retreat before using force. And there are often restrictions on how much force you can use. And unfortunately, the burden is always on the person who defends herself to prove her case. But the law does not say you can't defend yourself.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Giving a reason doesn't make something right, nor legal.
Maybe she should've been found not guilty by reason of insanity, but that doesn't mean that she didn't do something illegal. It means she wasn't in a state of mind to see the difference between right or wrong.
Just because these parents thought they were doing the right thing doesn't mean that what they did was right, nor does it mean that they shouldn't be held accountable for neglecting to get their child needed medical attention. Whether or not they thought it was right is completely and utterly irrelevent.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
I wouldn't imagine there are laws defining these situations in every state; however, it seems that most states take the position that if a minor is injured in an act of reasonable self-defense, then normal self-defense laws apply. The key word here, of course, is "reasonable". A ten year old kicking his father does not warrant physical recourse.
Incidentally, what is the purpose of this tangent?