Father slaps Daughter!...

[lodestone123]

OK - you have a point singledad but let's look at it another way - if we don't have some parameters around what is abuse...how we will prosecute the parents who really are abusing kids? There simply needs to be some guidelines.

 

[singledad]

OK - you have a point singledad but let's look at it another way - if we don't have some parameters around what is abuse...how we will prosecute the parents who really are abusing kids? There simply needs to be some guidelines.

Yes, indeed. There needs to be parameters. What I'm saying is that these parameters should not be based on a detailed description of what is allowed and what not. It should allow trained experts to evaluate each case on its own.

No child should ever be told "I'm sorry, I can't help you because he did do anything illegal".

I know that a system based on rules is much easier and cheaper to implement, but a system that prosecutes innocent parents while abused children continue to suffer, is worthless. And a system based in black and white rules will be exactly that.

 

[NancyM]

Quote by Jim McCullough"I felt that she didn't appreciate the seriousness of it. Simply grounding her wouldn't have proved the point. I felt she needed something to shock her.
"I was fully in control of my actions. I had no intention of causing her physical pain. I felt that she needed something to shock her. I slapped her across the face and the Jaffa cakes she was eating went flying across the garden".UNQUOTE


Momoja: if you were looking for a caretaker for your 4 yr old child would you hire this man after reading this on his resume? Honestly??



Do you believe slapping a person hard enough across the face enough to make Jaffa cakes in her hand 'FLY ACROSS' the garden is NOT PAINFUL?
he said he didn't want to cause her pain.



I'm not debating spanking here, but unfortunately I have known people to believe that slapping their child's face was a form of spanking.



What I've been saying all along and still trying to get across is: And why it should be criminal is:

What one person considers a beating, may be considered a spanking to another example: mom whipping child across legs with iron cord "only two times" considers that a spanking. That's the danger of allowing people to spank their kids, and that's why I agree with criminalizing it. Not everyone has enough control to stop after a gentle swat. Not everyone uses their hand.



When the laws are considered We're not talking about one incident of smacking your child, when this is considered, we're talking about making it a crime in an entire state full of a million different people with a million different ideas on how to raise a child and how to discipline him or her.

And if you really read my post all the way through MomoJa, you would see that I've answered that question. and ..I can't make it anymore clear either.

Again! My answer to the question should spanking be criminalized is Yes IMO.
Reason, is in my above post.

It's really impossible to answer yes or no to that question without giving examples.

 

[NancyM]

As I expected, MomoJA has posted my answer for me

Here's the main reason why I object to criminalising spanking:
The more you define "abuse"an and the more detail you go into regarding what is allowed and what not, the more you dis-empower social workers and law enforcement to evaluated cases individually. And because one can never fully define what constitutes abuse, the more you reduce social workers to simply following rules, the more abused children will slip through the cracks in your definition, and be left to fend for themselves.

You've got a point Singledad, I'm not sure though, who you mean should be responsible enough to define abuse. Do you mean us individuals or for the law to make that official definition?

I

 

[singledad]

You've got a point Singledad, I'm not sure though, who you mean should be responsible enough to define abuse. Do you mean us individuals or for the law to make that official definition?

I

My point is that no attempt should be made to define "abuse", because no definition can ever be complete. A better starting point would perhaps be to define the characteristics of an abused child, and train people like social workers to evaluate suspected victims. Convictions will thus rely on expert witnesses.

I realise that there are many dangers associated with such a system, but I am sure that with enough work and enough consideration, a workable system can be developed.

 

[NancyM]

<r>Maybe because we live in different countries SD the laws are different?<br/>
In my state and I believe in all U.S. states we do have strict laws to help prevent child abuse. I think this is kind of what you're talking about: these people are trained to recognize child abuse and are obligated by law to report it. <br/>
<br/>
I copied it from New York State agencies page it's the actual law per say. <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<B><s></s>What is a mandated reporter?<e></e></B><br/>
<br/>
New York State and the New York State Child Protective System recognize certain professionals as holding the important role of mandated reporter of child abuse or maltreatment. These professionals can be held liable by both the civil and criminal legal systems for intentionally failing to make a report. Professions include: <br/>

&lt;LIST&gt;&lt;s&gt;<LIST>

• <LI>&lt;/s&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Social Worker&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Licensed Creative Arts Therapist&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Licensed Mental Health Counselor&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Licensed Psychoanalyst&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Physician&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Surgeon&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Dentist&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Dental Hygienist&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Chiropractor&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Podiatrist&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Medical Examiner&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Coroner&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Osteopath&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Optometrist&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Resident&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Intern&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Registered Nurse&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Registered Physician’s Assistant&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Psychologist&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Mental Health Professional&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Substance Abuse Counselor&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Alcoholism Counselor&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Peace Officer&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;District Attorney, or Assistant District Attorney&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Police Officer&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Investigator employed in the Office of the District Attorney or other law enforcement official&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;School Official&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Social Services Worker&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Christian Science Practitioner&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Hospital personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of persons&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Any employee or volunteer in a residential care program for youth, or any other child care or foster care worker&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Day Care Center Worker&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Provider of Family or Group Family Day Care&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;LI&gt;&lt;s&gt;</LI><LI>
• &lt;/s&gt;Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs)&lt;/LI&gt;
  &lt;e&gt;</LI>

</LIST>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/LIST&gt;
Please be aware that there may have been changes to this list since this Web page was last updated. The current list is at Section 413 of the New York State Social Services Law.&lt;br/&gt;
Mandated reporters are required to report instances of suspected child abuse or maltreatment only when they are presented wth reasonable cause to suspect child abuse or maltreatment in their professional roles.&lt;/r&gt;

 

[MomoJA]

And if you really read my post all the way through MomoJa, you would see that I've answered that question. and ..I can't make it anymore clear either.

Again! My answer to the question should spanking be criminalized is Yes IMO.
Reason, is in my above post.

It's really impossible to answer yes or no to that question without giving examples.

I did read your post all the way through and you asked me a question that implied if I didn't want someone to babysit my child for various reasons it follows I should agree they should be imprisoned and if I didn't agree they should be imprisoned, I must condone their behavior. I, for one, can disagree with the way a person parents and not one them put in jail. I also know the difference between spanking and abuse.

It's something like the difference between drinking and being a drunk in the sense that it is on the same spectrum and because of that some people think it is impossible to drink without being a drunk and therefore support prohibition. But in reality drinking and being a drunk aren't even on the same planet.

Criminalizing spanking in NO WAY prevents abuse. It trivializes it. It distracts the system and the officers of the law and makes it easier for abusers to get away with abuse.

 

[parentastic]

Alright, several arguments to respond to on this discussion.

1) Making spanking illegal as a mean to prevent abuse?

The vast majority, the VAST, VAST majority of parents who spank do just that – not physically abuse their children. Criminalizing spanking does not stop that. Abusive parents will be abusive and we have laws on the books for that.

I don't believe that the line is between spanking and abuse. To go further - I don't believe that there is a discreet line.

MomoJA, you have a very good point here above: abusers don't give a damn about laws anyway, and there are already laws that criminalize abuse and child abuse. And I wholeheartedly agree with Singledad, that it is a very difficult, and ultimately useless task to attempt to draw the precise line, if any, between spanking and abuse.
I am not sure why this argument is being brought forth in the first place, though. I can't speak for others, but I know as far as I am concerned, the reason I want all forms of spanking to be declared illegal has nothing to do with "preventing abuse". For me it is about:

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Respecting a child's rights as being the same as any other human beings</LI>
  <LI>
• Respecting a person's right to preserve his physical integrity from physical violence, regardless of whether that violence is minimal or maximal, is called abuse or spanking, or whatever.</LI>

</LIST>
As NancyM mentioned several time, what "spanking" mean to a parent might very well mean something else for another parent. There is no point in defining what means what for who. It's besides the point. The point is that no human being should be controlled or bullied through the use of violence. Period.

So the ban on spanking, the legislation about spanking, for me, is not about protecting the small % of children who actually get abused. It's about protecting the vast majority, the <I>millions</I> of OTHER children who go through the first 10-15 years of their lives with the idea that being hit is okay, simply because you are too small to do anything about it. <I>that</I> is what it is all about, as far as I am concerned.
It's about getting a clear message across millions of good, loving and caring parents who simply don't know otherwise and simply reproduce what their own parents did with them, so that they start looking for good, loving and caring alternate solutions, education, and guidance.


2) presenting the issue in an indefensible terms: slapping a child or an adult

Ah, the debating technique of couching things in a way that puts the opposing opinion in indefensible terms.

Frankly, I find this kind of comment offensive, MomoJA.
Perhaps you should consider that the issue feels indefensible when I present it that way because, well, it really <I>is</I> indefensible.
I am saying: Why do you think slapping an adult is a crime but slapping a child shouldn't be? and that's the simple, naked and clear situation.

The fact is that we (and when I say we, I mean we as a society in North America, I am not saying "you" in any personal way against you), we find "normal" to inflict pain, humiliation to a child and attack his physical integrity when it would never cross our mind to tolerate that with anyone else. To respond to that argument, you have posted this:

But as for the difference between an adult assaulting an adult and a parent spanking a child ... (my emphasis added)

In your formulation lies already the problem with this reasoning.
Why is it "spanking" when it's on a child, and "assault" when it's on an adult? Are you saying that slapping a child in the face is only a spanking, but slapping an adult is assault, then?
Why is the <I>same gesture</I> more acceptable in one case than another, simply because we change the term? Isn't the <I>act</I> the same? Aren't they both full fledged human beings?

The Children's rights charters, issued by UNESCO in 1989, is pretty clear about this. Why shouldn't it apply?

3) We should tolerate the same gesture on a child and not an adult because we are responsible for the child

I am not, any more than I decide to be, responsible for my neighbor legally, morally, financially, physically, emotionally, and in every other way that I am responsible for my child whether I like it or not, and I like it!

What I don't like about this argument, is that I find it very similar to pro-slavery arguments. Being responsible for someone is one thing. Having a right to lay a hand on that person, to break their physical integrity - I don't see why one would warrant the other. Parent's don't "own" their children. Their children's rights aren't less real because they are temporarily educated and entrusted to their parents.
Yes, you are responsible for your child.
No, you are not responsible for your neighbor.
...And? That gives you the right to slap your child across the face.. how?

This being said, I think if we could prove that spanking actually did teach children, and did work as a way to help children grow into healthy adults, then I could see the argument. Basically, the argument in its simplest essence is: "<I>It's for your own good</I>". Except we now know, as you have yourself noted, that this is not the case. Hence, that argument has no more basis.

4) There are no legislation for yelling and no way to legislate for that, hence we should not legislate spanking either

And there are many ways of being abusive and physical abuse is probably among the least of them. Verbal abuse is an abusive form of screaming among other things.

I am not sure I understand the logic behind this argument at all.

Here is a similar logic: Cars make a lot of pollution. Children are exposed to car's pollution. Yet we can't really make a law to prevent cars from polluting children. Does that mean it justifies not making a law to prevent parents from smoking cigarette around children?

Yes, verbal abuse is <I>also</I> a form of abuse. But whether or not we can legislate this, does not change the validity of legislating to ban spanking. Moreover, my haunch is that many parents use spanking, in various forms from mild to strong (without necessarily calling it abuse) and they also use verbal abuse. They aren't mutually exclusive.
This being said, again - see my point #1 above - I don't think the bulk of the ban on spanking is to prevent abuse in the first place.

5) Generations of parents before us have used spanking, and their children turned out fine

generation after generation since the beginning of man has included spanking as a PARENTING technique and man has not come to a screeching halt and man has continued to innovate and create and become happy, well-adjusted, successful, contributing members of society.

Generations of parents before us also have used belts to deliver what they were sure were only "spanking". And they were sure their children "turned out fine" too. As NancyM well said, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Before that, generations of adults decided that men could rule a house and beat their wife. Today, we think that women have equal rights.
Before that, generations of people across Italy, France and Europe in the 1600's believed that bloodletting was a way to treat injuries. I could go on and on.

6) If spanking become illegal, there will be parents all over the country in jail, separated from their families, with a life-time criminal record

Do you not think making spanking a criminal offense is categoric?

I am not lawyer and so, you will have to pardon my lack of knowledge in this area. It seems to me, however, from my limited knowledge, that there is huge difference between having something illegal, and the consequence when you are caught.
For instance, crossing the intersection in my car on a red light is illegal, and I can get arrested for it. 9 times out of 10, I might cross on a red light and not get an accident; however it is still illegal. If I am caught, that doesn't mean I am going to immediately get behind bars! I will get a fine, lose some points on my license, and eventually if I do it again and again, and I don't learn, I might lose my license.
If spanking becomes illegal, there are still judges whose jobs are to compound the law to the offense and situation and tailor it or dismiss it, and it may take several repeated offenses for an actual parents to be behind bars.
How it is treated - as a criminal offense or as an infraction, as something that sticks or does not stick to your record, as something that gets you a punishment X or Y - that's details that can depend on states, on each law, how it was written and on what purpose. It's beyond my knowledge and beyond the point. The point is: let's not get hysterical. A ban on spanking is about changing society's habits on the long run; it's not about putting half the parenting population behind bars.

7) If it was illegal today, half the parents on this very board would be behind bars
Well, no. When a new law is enacted, nobody looks if you have done the illegal act <I>before</I> it starts to be in power. Even when it becomes in power, most of the time, there a pretty long grace period and a lot of advertisement about it.
And it's not going to happen in the future either.
It's easy: we can simply look how 20+ other countries adapted when they decided to ban spanking. Did half the parenting population suddenly ended behind bars? Of course not. People realized it was now illegal, so they adapted. Most of them adapted by getting some education and finding that time outs and simple forms of punishment works just as well (or just as bad, actually!). It really was not the hell that is described here.

So what is so bad about making it illegal?

 

[MomoJA]

Parentastic, your underlying, unhidden assumption is that spanking is a violent assault on a child.

Apparantly, you did not read or did not understand my explanation, but as I said, it would be impossible to fully explain it here. Regardless, it seems your mind is closed on this, so the point in discussing it is moot. The truth is, I guess I'm not really discussing it but expressing my objections, as I feel it is my duty to do in the same way I hope I would have expressed my objections to slavery and the rounding up of undesirables during the Holocaust, etc. Criminalization is WRONG and I will fight against it.

You totally missed my point about my responsibility toward my neighbor, and I'm not sure if that was on purpose or because you don't yet have a child so you can't fully understand the difference. It will come clear when you do have one. It's a responsibility that cannot be compared with societal responsibilities.

As for you finding my comments offensive, I'm sorry, but I truly find your belief that you can insert your assumptions upon, and control the parenting of millions of loving, successful parents through criminalization BEYOND offensive, and perhaps my diplomacy has taken a back seat to my sense of outrage.

Your explanation about why people who have spanked in the past would not be put in jail does not address my concerns one iota. In addition, I'll reiterate that I find that way of legislating frightening in the extreme. If it is a criminal offense, they are criminals, regardless of whether or not the law is going to grandfather them in. If it is not criminal, it should not be made criminal. You think it is criminal and the parents on this forum who spank are criminals, and I don't. That's the difference between our feelings on this matter.

 

[singledad]

I have come to the conclusion that this debate is going nowhere. For me, the only reason to outlaw spanking would be if such laws could prevent abuse. Others seem to disagree with this.

Perhaps, the real difference arrises out of the fact that we don't agree on exactly how serious a problem spanking is. I don't think is a big deal. But then, even though I agree that it's wrong to slap another adult, I'd also consider an adult who has another charged with assult after being slapped, rather pathetic. Who knows, perhaps I'm just from a somewhat less civilised society?

I have stated my argument. I believe that criminilising spanking is the first step in a very dangerous process that will very likely end up endangering more children. It is a slippery slope that I hope our government stays off.

I have nothing more to add.

 

[NancyM]

I have come to the conclusion that this debate is going nowhere. For me, the only reason to outlaw spanking would be if such laws could prevent abuse. Others seem to disagree with this.

Perhaps, the real difference arrises out of the fact that we don't agree on exactly how serious a problem spanking is. I don't think is a big deal. But then, even though I agree that it's wrong to slap another adult, I'd also consider an adult who has another charged with assult after being slapped, rather pathetic. Who knows, perhaps I'm just from a somewhat less civilised society?

I have stated my argument. I believe that criminilising spanking is the first step in a very dangerous process that will very likely end up endangering more children. It is a slippery slope that I hope our government stays off.

I have nothing more to add.

 

[singledad]

 

[NancyM]

Forget it SD it doesn't matter.

 

[NancyM]

I did read your post all the way through and you asked me a question that implied if I didn't want someone to babysit my child for various reasons it follows I should agree they should be imprisoned and if I didn't agree they should be imprisoned, I must condone their behavior. I, for one, can disagree with the way a person parents and not one them put in jail. I also know the difference between spanking and abuse.

What IS the difference, that's really my question? I think we all have a different image in our minds of what actually takes place when a parent spanks a child. What do you consider spanking?

It's something like the difference between drinking and being a drunk in the sense that it is on the same spectrum and because of that some people think it is impossible to drink without being a drunk and therefore support prohibition. But in reality drinking and being a drunk aren't even on the same planet.

IMO, a person who drinks occasionally is not a drunk, a person who drinks 5 times a week might be, a person who drinks everyday might be, and a person who drinks more than that everyday, is.

That's not so hard to determine, and I wouldn't trust any of them with my child because I'm afraid they just might over drink (that one time) and that's the way the court has to decide as well. Point is that just because a person claims to drink only 5 times a week, doesn't mean he/she is telling the truth. Same as when a person says they only hit their child one time in her life doesn't mean they are being truthful. This is what the court is looking at, not me.

The child authorities have to decide that, which is a good thing because just look at how none of us can agree on what to do about it, and The other point is that the parent or adult aren't the important people in these situations, the child is, and that's the way it should be.

Criminalizing spanking in NO WAY prevents abuse. It trivializes it. It distracts the system and the officers of the law and makes it easier for abusers to get away with abuse.

I agree with you here, criminalizing spanking would not prevent child abuse, but the good thing is that it gives the authorities a wider spectrum to work with. Since EVERYONE has their own definition of 'spanking', abusers who call beating a child 'spanking' will be arrested as well as the dad who only hit his child once. Now wait.......

Once the beating dad goes to court and it's founded he is an abuser, by actual proof...he will be sentenced to jail or prison time as he should be.

Once the 'One-time hitter' goes to court and it is proven he doesn't use hitting as a form of punishment, or has only hit his child once, he will not get jail or prison time..which is also fair. He certainly should be ordered to enroll in a few parenting classes, since he still has no right to hit his child, and any true good parent would probably be sorry they did that anyway, and would not want to get in that predicament again.

That's the only reason "Spanking" is NOT defined. It's kind of mingled in with general abuse because If we define it by itself, the definition would distract the system and officers of the law would have to determine when they arrive at a scene, if a child was actually abused or smacked/spanked....:arghh: They would be focused on the trivial details and only allowed to arrest someone who violated that specific offense.
You can imagine how complicated that would be in real life, cops are people too and those who've been spanked/smacked in their own lives,may not be able to make that distinction, child abuse can't be, and shouldn't be left up to them alone to determine.

So I'm agreeing that criminalizing it will not prevent child abuse.(as nothing else would either) But I do not agree that criminalizing hittingor spanking children would distract the system as you've stated in your above quote.

 

[grieving]

What does hitting another person accomplish? When someone is beaten, it breaks their spirit. And words can hurt just as much.

When you strike another person, one is trying to overpower the other. When an adult hits a child, is that necessary? Why do people hit others? It must be a way of dealing with things, and that behavior is learned.

I never hit my kids, there have been times, especially when they were around 16 or so where they were outright rude and behaving like a-holes where I was so mad I wanted to hit them.

Growing up, my dad never hit or yelled at us. My mom, however, would threaten to hit us, She would get mad and would go outside to get a twig out of a tree, but that was our warning. We then did what we were told.

It will be interesting to see how my children parent their kids.

 

[parentastic]

spanking is a violent assault on a child.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.
It can be mildly violent, or it can be very violent, and I agree that there are degrees and that some of it might be called abuse or not. I also agree that the exact point at which it might be called abuse can be discussed and might very well be different for each person.

But I don't see how spanking cannot be considered violent:

Definition of 'violent' according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary
1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity &lt;a violent attack&gt;
2a : notably furious or vehement &lt;a violent denunciation&gt;
2b : extreme, intense &lt;violent pain&gt; &lt;violent colors&gt;
3: caused by force : not natural &lt;a violent death&gt;
4a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control &lt;became violent after an insult&gt;
4b : prone to commit acts of violence

Definition of 'assault' according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary
1 : a violent physical or verbal attack
2 : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact

I don't see how one cannot see spanking as a neither violent nor assault.

Let's get something straight about spanking:

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• It's purpose is always to cause pain and shock. How do I know? Well, if you give a gentle tap on your toddler's arm - gentle enough not to hurt at all - then the toddler will see it as a game and it won't "work". In order to "work", the spanker has to make it at least somewhat painful, right? Hence, it is an act of violence, even when it is mild.</LI>
  <LI>
• It's always inflicted against the child's will, using force. Hence, it's an assault.</LI>
  <LI>
• And since children are brain-wired to attach to their caregiver and seek protection and safety from them, they cannot understand the paradox of receiving pain and being physically invaded by the very person they are supposed to go to when they are in pain - even when it's not a major pain.</LI>

</LIST>

Regardless, it seems your mind is closed on this, so the point in discussing it is moot.

I would respectfully point out that it takes two to tango, and that my mind does not seem any more closed on this specific issue than yours. This being said, I consider that my mind is open... to any sound and logical argument. And in the mean time, I do respect you as a person as well as respect your right to have this opinion. I am sad it does not seem to be reciprocal. The issue seems very emotional for you, and I am still waiting for you to write, if you wish, the real underlying issue you have with the criminalization of spanking.

The truth is, I guess I'm not really discussing it but expressing my objections, as I feel it is my duty to do in the same way I hope I would have expressed my objections to slavery and the rounding up of undesirables during the Holocaust, etc. Criminalization is WRONG and I will fight against it.

This is such a weird example, if you will pardon me for saying.
I am glad you would have expressed your objections to slavery and to the holocaust. It seems the comparison would be more suited to my side of the argument: when I express my objections to spanking, I am also opposing something that a majority of people used to think was okay to force onto other, weaker people, but that really is wrong. I find it strange that you'd equate slavery or the killing of millions of Jews with <I>protecting the right of an individual to strike and violate the physical integrity of a child</I>.

You totally missed my point about my responsibility toward my neighbor, and I'm not sure if that was on purpose or because you don't yet have a child so you can't fully understand the difference. It will come clear when you do have one. It's a responsibility that cannot be compared with societal responsibilities.

I perfectly understood the <I>vast difference</I> that, indeed, lies between a parenting and a societal responsibility.
<I>What I do not understand, however, is why you believe this difference justifies the act.</I>

Your explanation about why people who have spanked in the past would not be put in jail does not address my concerns one iota. If it is a criminal offense, they are criminals, regardless of whether or not the law is going to grandfather them in.

So what <I>is </I>your concern then?
Are you afraid to be labelled a criminal?
Why not simply say "Hey, spanking is useless anyway, and it seems it's bad for a child, so I'll just stop using that and so will the parents who used it in the country, and that's it" ?
What is that deep emotional concern that seems so dangerous to you?

Now, I don't want to assume anything about you, so please forgive me for this: but I am wondering if the real hidden matter underlying your line of argument isn't something like this:

<I>My children are mine, I can do whatever I want with them, and I won't let anyone or any law dictate what I can or can't do with them in my own home. I may not use spanking, but I will let no one tell me I can't use it if I want to. And since I clearly love my children and would never want to harm them, I will let no one tell me I might have done something to them that is 'criminal' or harmful.

</I>:speechbaffled: Could it be?

You think it is criminal and the parents on this forum who spank are criminals, and I don't. That's the difference between our feelings on this matter.

Actually, I think someone who is still spanking a child in a country in which it is illegal is a criminal. As for the people who spank their child in a country where it is still legal? I called them <I>misguided</I>. Not criminals.

 

[MomoJA]

Now, I don't want to assume anything about you, so please forgive me for this: but I am wondering if the real hidden matter underlying your line of argument isn't something like this:

.

Oh, but you do assume.

And you will never understand the danger of what you propose even as you admit that spanking except when it is semantically criminal is not actually criminal. That very fact is a great part of what I find dangerous. The fact that you will never see it.

You are fond of giving, as proof that spanking should be criminalized, things that were legal in the past that are obviously wrong. Let's follow that logic. There have been many "objectionable" things that have been made illegal in the past because the mob wanted to "teach" society how to behave. I cringe. My child, for one, would have been an abomination not too long ago. My marriage, a crime. We as a people look back on those hysterical reactions motivated by fear and often religion, and we thank our lucky stars that we no longer live in a time when a person can be persecuted not for a crime but for "objectionable" practices. Or do we?

But then, I must have some insidious reason, either that I'm aware of and hiding or that I'm too blind to see, for objecting to criminalization. Why would anyone claim he is not a witch unless he is one?

 

[singledad]

Nicholas,

I know I said I'm done with this thread (and I certainly don't mean to offer any more arguments) but you arguments leaves me with certain questions that a want to ask you to answer.

First - would you want the definition of "abuse" amended to include spanking, or should a separate law be passed against spanking specifically?

If a separate law is passed:
1. How will cases of spanking be brought under the attention of the police, especially for younger children, who can't report it themselves?
2. How should it be investigated? ie. Who has the burden of proof, and what constitutes proof?
3. How should these parents be charged? Spot fines? Court cases? What sorts of sentences? Do they get a criminal record?
4. What measures should be put in place to prevent repeat offences?

Lastly, whether or not you you advocate for a seperate law to be passed, but because I don't know how it works in the US, can you answer the same for abuse? (I think Nancy has already covered question 1 for abuse when she listed the people who are obliged to report suspected abuse).

Please don't go into long justifications, I've had quite enough of that going around in circles in this thread, from both sides.

 

[parentastic]

I have come to the conclusion that this debate is going nowhere.

I think forums are great because they are read by many, many more people than the one who participate. So even if each of us stands on our positions, I believe it can help other readers grow. I know that I do, when I participate in these debates.

I believe that criminilising spanking is the first step in a very dangerous process that will very likely end up endangering more children.

Could you elaborate on this? I am in the dark as to why you see this as a dangerous first step. What would be the next steps? And how would these likely endanger children?

 

[singledad]

.So even if each of us stands on our positions, I believe it can help other readers grow. I know that I do, when I participate in these debates.

Well yes, you certainly do

I do think, however, that people can learn without me having to repeat myself.

Could you elaborate on this? I am in the dark as to why you see this as a dangerous first step. What would be the next steps? And how would these likely endanger children?

:speechmumblesost 31, 38 and 40.

And for goodness sake, don't quote them and post me another essay in response, unless you're going to post something new.

I am thoroughly bored with repeating myself. :dull:

I've stated my point, and wasted a lot of time reading a lot of emotional diatribes that in no way addressed the risks I pointed out. Now I'm giving you the chance to help me understand your point and possibly convince me, by answering my questions. So please do that.