Asymmetrical Information

GT,

"Jane says that this is not a matter for government to be invoved in. In fact it very much is a matter for government."

Are you stumping for Hillary? Do you sincerely believe that the responsibility of raising America's children rests more with the government than it does with the parents? If so, I'd like to hear exactly why you feel elected officials (fully removed the particular circumstances of each family) are more qualified to fulfill that role?

Sigivald and Anony still don't seem to get it. All they're saying is that they disagree with the government's definition of abuse in this case. That obviously doesn't mean that it is outside the legitimate scope of government to make such definitions.

Weirder than fiction.

I've five kids and if there is one thing about about corporal punishment that needs to be said this is it, if done correctly, that is inflicting pain without injury (spanking), and done in a manner that the child understands the cause and effect relationship between the behavior and the punishment, it works better than anything else. If the behavior is one that cannot allowed to be continued, like a 4 year old who wants to take solitary twilight walks along the beach, well, what do you do? If done correctly too, it will soon cease to be necessary and thus can be done sparingly. I don't know if it really 'hurt me more than it is going to hurt you', but I always hated doing it, so it ceasing to be necessary was a huge plus for me.

One last, my parents went to Catholic school back in the nuns with yardsticks days. In high falutin language, what those nuns did with those yardsticks was a clinical intervention to lessen the symptomatic behavior of the disorder known as ADD, and from the the second hand accounts I get from my parents, they had a very high success rate. We don't do that anymore, we tranquilize them instead, because nowadays we're more.... humane?

Anony-mouse:

It seems you and I (and DP) agree but you can?t seem to bring yourself to agree that we agree. Does that make sense?

There are two separate issues here and the debate is confusing because we jump from one to the other.

First is the question of whether government should be in the business of regulating what is or is not abuse. THIS is where I disagree with what Jane says.

If we agree that government has a role the next question is what are the limits? What is a reasonable definition of child abuse? What is or not appropriate?

Note that I have made no comments at all (and neither has DP I think) on question #2. It?s a very important debate but it is not the issue I am addressing.

Jane claims government should not involve itself (local vs fed govt caveat here). That makes no sense. If the government doesn?t involve itself then anything is allowed. And we all agree that is wrong.

Now maybe Jane, or you, disagree with the standards Canada has. Fine. But it is completely and totally wrong to say that government has no role.

The government does not bear the burden of demonstrating why it has to interfere. That has been amply established by the many, many cases of child abuse. Nobody in their sane mind argues today that parents should be free to do whatever they wish to their children.

What the government MUST demonstrate is why this PARTICULAR ruling is appropriate and not another one. That is a completely different issue.

If your three year old repeatedly runs into the street after being told not to, after being yelled at not to, you have a responsibility to spank the child. It is impossible to reason with a three year old and yet some messages MUST be made clear. Like it or not, you will not always be there to physically prevent them from running into the street. You can trust nobody else with that responsibility. The child MUST understand.

Certainly abuse exists, but abuse can be judged on a case by case basis. To eliminate a valid and time tested tool for disciplining children by government fiat is not only obtrusive it can be potentially dangerous.

Remember all you advocates for the Nanny State, just because you cannot think of a valid reason for something doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Seat belt laws are one thing, but when you start telling me how to raise my children, we're going to have a big problem.

Jim English
Chicago

"just because you cannot think of a valid reason for something doesn't mean that one doesn't exist." Jim Huber tells a parable that abundantly illustrates this point.

When they go from prosecuting clear abuse to forbidding or severely limiting spanking, they are on a crusade to change child-rearing methods that have been accepted and generally successful for millenia. You'd better have a damned good scientific basis for trying to impose such a big change upon a whole society. There is no such body of research.

Anecdotally, I'll note that when I grew up in the 60's, it was often quite easy to recognize kids whose parents didn't believe in spanking. They were brats and bullies. The one boy from a home that probably was abusive was tough, inclined to pick fights with kids twice his size and win, but not a bully.
http://jhuger.com/phandpr.mv

I think everybody here agrees but refuses to say so. Yes, governments have the responsibility to stop child abuse; no, spanking is not child abuse; a government who over-defines child abuse to include all corporal punishment is misusing a responsibility that the citizens have, in fact, given it. Yes? No?

Katherine,

Whether spanking is or not child abuse (I would argue not) is something that will vary over time and by country.

In this case it's up to Canadians to say if they agree or not. Maybe their views on this are different then yours or mine. If they feel the government is misusing its responsibilities they have ways to change that.

What makes no sense is to claim that government should not be involved.

I simply question why proponents of intervention into what I perceive as the exclusive domain of responsible parents believe government officials are qualified to impose their collective will on a family's decision to spank a child by legislative mandate?

GT, I guess that's the point I was trying to sum up. I do not happen to believe that Canadians in general think spanking three-year-olds is abuse. Now, if it turns out that Canadians do generally support this decision, well, then, I disagree with their views on corporal punishment, and I'm happy that their democratic institutions are functioning as they ought. But if Canadians do think spanking a three-year-old is acceptable, then their government has overstepped its bounds, because this definition does not reflect that of the society at large, from which it draws its right to govern.

And yes, of course the Canadians have ways to change that. Nobody has yet suggested we topple Martin's government by military force. The problem, obviously, and the real reason this is resonating with the conservatives on this board, is that it's so difficult to overturn a high court decision. Conservatives are going to see this as another data point supporting the argument that judges should interpret the law conservatively and leave sweeping change to the legislatures. Of course, there are plenty of data points (Brown v. Board of Education etc.) on the other side. But we're all arguing about child abuse, when I think the issue we really disagree on is the extent of the judiciary's role in lawmaking.

Monte, do you believe the government should stand idly by as I discipline my son by breaking his fingers and toes and burning him with my cigarette? Starving him when he disobeys? Leaving bruises on his cheek for a bad report card? Where do you draw the line?

Katherine,

Please! We're talking about responsible parents disciplining their children using acceptable forms of punishment, not "Mother Dearest" salivating over which form of torture to inflict on her innocent children.

We already have laws that permit us to prosecute "parents" guilty of child abuse, neglect and/or endangerment without the need to broaden the scope of government's intrusion into our personal lives and decisions.

If you're willing to relinquish that responsibility to Uncle Sam, be my quest. But don't ask (or force) me to.

Monte, you and I have no argument on what is and is not child abuse, and I don't want the government outlawing spanking either. The point of my reductio ad absurdum is simply that child abuse and spanking are on the same spectrum, and all our laws do is draw a line on that spectrum beyond which parents are not allowed to go.

It's because they're helping him focus on what he chooses to focus on. And that is a whole lot more humane than whacking him with a yardstick

So instead of encouraging/forcing a child to learn how to focus on his or her own -- skills that will be necessary for the rest of that child's life -- it is more humane to drug the child so they never learn how on their own?

"The point of my reductio ad absurdum is simply that child abuse and spanking are on the same spectrum, and all our laws do is draw a line on that spectrum beyond which parents are not allowed to go."

I'm not so sure they are on the same spectrum. If you are arguing that spankings can be used as a method for abuse, you are correct. But so can purely verbal acts. Mere spanking is not abuse, and neither is mere talking (or in most cases even mere yelling). So trying to outlaw any of them is going far beyond the legitimate interests of the government.

How old does a child have to be to hit back?

If a thirteen year old beats his mother/father to a pulp after an attempted spanking, has the teenager committed a crime?

Why wouldn't it be self-defense?

"If a thirteen year old beats his mother/father to a pulp after an attempted spanking, has the teenager committed a crime?"

Yes, because beating someone to a pulp is defined by law as aggravated battery and assault. The 13-year old couldn't claim self-defense because corporal punishment is not illegal.

IMO, if a parent must resort to spanking their teenager, the battle for normative behavior was lost years ago. Either that, or the parent needs serious psychological counseling.

"Now, if it turns out that Canadians do generally support this decision, well, then, I disagree with their views on corporal punishment, and I'm happy that their democratic institutions are functioning as they ought." I'd also plan on watching the border a lot more closely in the future. We have enough home-grown sociopaths without adding a few million young Canadians that think they can do whatever they want and get less than a slap on the wrist in punishment.

Sure you are. But out of curiosity, how much experience -- direct or observational -- do you have on which to base your "questioning?

Many years as a child, a parent and observing.

GT: Fair enough.

bkw:

So instead of encouraging/forcing a child to learn how to focus on his or her own -- skills that will be necessary for the rest of that child's life -- it is more humane to drug the child so they never learn how on their own?

Depends on the child. As I see it the problem with these drugs is that a few kids genuinely need them, but the ease with which an agressive doctor can 'diagnose' an ADHD case, and the temptation of a quick fix, lends itself to certain procedural abuses.

Bob Dobalina:

If a thirteen year old beats his mother/father to a pulp after an attempted spanking, has the teenager committed a crime?
Why wouldn't it be self-defense?

In addition to what Monte said, I believe the court would take into account whether the spanking was in fact crossing the line to abuse, and a 'defensive' beating literally "to a pulp" would probably constitute malice. (Similarly if you ever have to shoot in self-defense, shoot once and shoot again if the situation warrants it. But empty the clip for spite, and 'self-defense' won't save you from prosecution.)

Steve: Interesting. What were your kids personalities like? Were any of them like me, and if so, what means did you use to train them?

Comments are Closed.