Corporal punishment of children 「Yes or No?」

[The Three Palins]

Corporal punishment without due process of law is abuse. It is cruel and creepy.




I know that's hard to argue against. If it was soft or weak, I would have qualified it.
To the subjects of authority, punishment sucks. It wouldn't be punishment otherwise.

Your last sentence is key to this whole thing. Parents are authorities, authorized as such by law, with certain limits in capacity. They generally are granted, either explicitly or implicitly, certain powers of state and guardianship over those in their charge:

1) Corporal punishment
2) Detention
3) Medical decision making
4) Forced education
5) Forced food choices
6) Forced labor (IE, clean your room)
7) Restrictions on travel
Restrictions on speech, right to protest
9) Restrictions on armaments (you can’t have a gun while I’m around)

To just name a few. Now, parents are subject to higher legal authorities (city, county, state, federal) in how they administer the powers the state has granted them, and they can have their authority removed if they abuse it and the state catches it, but these are all powers granted to them by the state in this instance.

None of those powers are granted without qualification.

Just as no State can punish without abiding by Due Process, I don't see how any State can delegate, assign or whatprocess, their power to parents. Over other citizens. Without also ensuring Due Process.

To little arms, little Americans! Make puny punching motions for your rights! Topple the tottering Grandma State with a ruthless bite to the ankle!

Children cannot be protected by the Federal government ... other than by an attempted statute which forces the Supreme Court to grant rights to them directly. Or prevents some kinds of discrimination against them specifically as children.

It is up to each state, to create their own model of Due Process for children. Go.

The biggest issue is who reports. Adults are assumed to be responsible enough, that they will report serious crimes if they see them. Of course they don't, and excessive sentences play a role in that, but even if there was nothing more on the line than an embarrassing visit from police, most adults still wouldn't report crimes happening right before their eyes. The perp will suffer enough, from what me and everyone else here can do to harm their interests, over the next few years. They think.

But to my point, the child's experience of approaching adult strangers, and telling them a story, is probably "do you have a mother or father we could talk to about this?" To design a system of reporting crimes against children, we should certainly make it easy for them, but not in any way rely on reports from child victims, to scale the problem.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Corporal punishment without due process of law is abuse. It is cruel and creepy.




I know that's hard to argue against. If it was soft or weak, I would have qualified it.
To the subjects of authority, punishment sucks. It wouldn't be punishment otherwise.

Your last sentence is key to this whole thing. Parents are authorities, authorized as such by law, with certain limits in capacity. They generally are granted, either explicitly or implicitly, certain powers of state and guardianship over those in their charge:

1) Corporal punishment
2) Detention
3) Medical decision making
4) Forced education
5) Forced food choices
6) Forced labor (IE, clean your room)
7) Restrictions on travel
Restrictions on speech, right to protest
9) Restrictions on armaments (you can’t have a gun while I’m around)

To just name a few. Now, parents are subject to higher legal authorities (city, county, state, federal) in how they administer the powers the state has granted them, and they can have their authority removed if they abuse it and the state catches it, but these are all powers granted to them by the state in this instance.

I hate this system to death.

[Disgraces]

Your last sentence is key to this whole thing. Parents are authorities, authorized as such by law, with certain limits in capacity. They generally are granted, either explicitly or implicitly, certain powers of state and guardianship over those in their charge:

1) Corporal punishment
2) Detention
3) Medical decision making
4) Forced education
5) Forced food choices
6) Forced labor (IE, clean your room)
7) Restrictions on travel
Restrictions on speech, right to protest
9) Restrictions on armaments (you can’t have a gun while I’m around)

To just name a few. Now, parents are subject to higher legal authorities (city, county, state, federal) in how they administer the powers the state has granted them, and they can have their authority removed if they abuse it and the state catches it, but these are all powers granted to them by the state in this instance.

I hate this system to death.

Yes let children do whatever they want nothing will go wrong.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I hate this system to death.

Yes let children do whatever they want nothing will go wrong.

My solution is simply childlessness.

[Galloism]

Your last sentence is key to this whole thing. Parents are authorities, authorized as such by law, with certain limits in capacity. They generally are granted, either explicitly or implicitly, certain powers of state and guardianship over those in their charge:

1) Corporal punishment
2) Detention
3) Medical decision making
4) Forced education
5) Forced food choices
6) Forced labor (IE, clean your room)
7) Restrictions on travel
Restrictions on speech, right to protest
9) Restrictions on armaments (you can’t have a gun while I’m around)

To just name a few. Now, parents are subject to higher legal authorities (city, county, state, federal) in how they administer the powers the state has granted them, and they can have their authority removed if they abuse it and the state catches it, but these are all powers granted to them by the state in this instance.

None of those powers are granted without qualification.

Just as no State can punish without abiding by Due Process, I don't see how any State can delegate, assign or whatprocess, their power to parents. Over other citizens. Without also ensuring Due Process.

To little arms, little Americans! Make puny punching motions for your rights! Topple the tottering Grandma State with a ruthless bite to the ankle!

Children cannot be protected by the Federal government ... other than by an attempted statute which forces the Supreme Court to grant rights to them directly. Or prevents some kinds of discrimination against them specifically as children.

It is up to each state, to create their own model of Due Process for children. Go.

It will certainly be challenging to have a jury trial on whether you’re grounded or not. And how much bail the kid will have to surrender to get out of his room while awaiting trial is an interesting mental exercise.

The biggest issue is who reports. Adults are assumed to be responsible enough, that they will report serious crimes if they see them. Of course they don't, and excessive sentences play a role in that, but even if there was nothing more on the line than an embarrassing visit from police, most adults still wouldn't report crimes happening right before their eyes. The perp will suffer enough, from what me and everyone else here can do to harm their interests, over the next few years. They think.

But to my point, the child's experience of approaching adult strangers, and telling them a story, is probably "do you have a mother or father we could talk to about this?" To design a system of reporting crimes against children, we should certainly make it easy for them, but not in any way rely on reports from child victims, to scale the problem.

There are issues surrounding reporting. This I’ll agree with. It’s why we’ve made physicians, school teachers, counselors, etc, mandatory reporters.

There still needs to be more done, but the reporting issue is a serious one.

[Disgraces]

Yes let children do whatever they want nothing will go wrong.

My solution is simply childlessness.

[Salandriagado]

Assault does not suddenly become acceptable when the victim is a child.

This argument, taken in the absolute as presented, has some pretty unfortunate consequences.

Go on.

[Galloism]

This argument, taken in the absolute as presented, has some pretty unfortunate consequences.

Go on.

As an example of the point, a man comes into the doctor feeling horrible. He has a rash and labored breathing. Doctor determines he’s having a significant, but not severe, allergic reaction to something. He gets a steroid shot ready, then tells the patient this will hurt a little bit.

The patient emphatically says “no, I don’t want the shot.”

The doctor says “stop being a baby”, and injects him.

What is that called?

[Disgraces]

Go on.

As an example of the point, a man comes into the doctor feeling horrible. He has a rash and labored breathing. Doctor determines he’s having a significant, but not severe, allergic reaction to something. He gets a steroid shot ready, then tells the patient this will hurt a little bit.

The patient emphatically says “no, I don’t want the shot.”

The doctor says “stop being a baby”, and injects him.

What is that called?

I mean, I think the doctor did the right thing.

[Galloism]

I mean, I think the doctor did the right thing.

Nope.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm gonna need the 「Yes or No?」threads to stop

Yes please.

Putting [Yes or No?] in an NSG thread title is both pointless and irritating.

[Salandriagado]

Go on.

As an example of the point, a man comes into the doctor feeling horrible. He has a rash and labored breathing. Doctor determines he’s having a significant, but not severe, allergic reaction to something. He gets a steroid shot ready, then tells the patient this will hurt a little bit.

The patient emphatically says “no, I don’t want the shot.”

The doctor says “stop being a baby”, and injects him.

What is that called?

Not assault. Assault is the intentional or reckless use of the threat of unlawful violence to cause fear in others. That is clearly not what is happening here. It's a crime, sure, and rightly so, but not assault. Evidently, US law is rather broader in this regard, but the conclusion there is that US law is silly and conflates several obviously very different offences.

[Galloism]

Not assault. Assault is the intentional or reckless use of the threat of unlawful violence to cause fear in others. That is clearly not what is happening here. It's a crime, sure, and rightly so, but not assault. Evidently, US law is rather broader in this regard, but the conclusion there is that US law is silly and conflates several obviously very different offences.

Typically, this would be covered under assault laws - when he said “don’t be a baby” and raised the needle, it was the threat of imminent unlawful violence which would, in the given person, cause fear. In fact the doctor recognizes and tries to dismiss that fear.

also, if I were to use your definition, clearly corporal punishment doesn’t fit the definition of assault either - given it’s not unlawful violence.

[Salandriagado]

Not assault. Assault is the intentional or reckless use of the threat of unlawful violence to cause fear in others. That is clearly not what is happening here. It's a crime, sure, and rightly so, but not assault. Evidently, US law is rather broader in this regard, but the conclusion there is that US law is silly and conflates several obviously very different offences.

Typically, this would be covered under assault laws - when he said “don’t be a baby” and raised the needle, it was the threat of imminent unlawful violence which would, in the given person, cause fear. In fact the doctor recognizes and tries to dismiss that fear.

Typically in the US, sure. However, the UK uses, so far as I can tell, a narrower definition of "violence", under which that does not fall.

also, if I were to use your definition, clearly corporal punishment doesn’t fit the definition of assault either - given it’s not unlawful violence.

Yes it is: I live in a civilised country in which it is unlawful.

[Galloism]

Typically, this would be covered under assault laws - when he said “don’t be a baby” and raised the needle, it was the threat of imminent unlawful violence which would, in the given person, cause fear. In fact the doctor recognizes and tries to dismiss that fear.

Typically in the US, sure. However, the UK uses, so far as I can tell, a narrower definition of "violence", under which that does not fall.

You don’t think stabbing someone is violence?

How odd.

This guy seems to disagree:

https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/ ... f-assault/

Injuries that interfere with the health or personal comfort of a complainant may constitute the infliction of ‘actual’ harm through assault. Actual harm refers to the notable consequences caused by an assault, meaning physical and psychological injuries need only be of minimal detriment to health but must be proven.

One such instance whereby notable harm was caused was exhibited in a case where the accused individual allegedly cut the hair of the complainant, which notably caused a negative impact on personal comfort and confidence.

What is common assault?

Common assault or battery normally involves the unlawful touching of a person (where they have not ‘silently’ consented, i.e. if jolted during a concert) but does not require there to have been any injury.

By the letter of the law, common assault or battery is occasioned where there is more than merely transient or trifling contact. It is not necessary for the police or prosecution to prove injury. Normally – subject to some exceptions – the prosecution will choose not to prosecute a case in court if there are no injuries at all as it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.

In general, most minor assaults which have caused minor injuries or passing discomfort or pain will be prosecuted as common assault.

Surely, stabbing someone who’s clearly afraid of being stabbed resulting in injection site pain is at least comparable to an unwanted haircut. Also, we can now never cut children’s hair if they don’t want a haircut, which is at least as ridiculous as my previous example.

also, if I were to use your definition, clearly corporal punishment doesn’t fit the definition of assault either - given it’s not unlawful violence.

Yes it is: I live in a civilised country in which it is unlawful.

Not the UK. Scotland though, if you live in Scotland.

[Insaanistan]

I’d say yes. Yeah, I don’t getting whipped, but that’s what I get for being a stupid little kid.

[Esalia]

I’d say yes. Yeah, I don’t getting whipped, but that’s what I get for being a stupid little kid.

Or we could not beat/whip kids and then try to rationalise it as the kid's fault.

[Insaanistan]

I’d say yes. Yeah, I don’t getting whipped, but that’s what I get for being a stupid little kid.

Or we could not beat kids and then try to rationalise it as the kid's fault.

I remember what it was like to be a kid, and I remember other kids.
If by some miracle I ever get married, I’m definitely using corporal punishment. Not as often as my parents, mind you, but still.

[Esalia]

Or we could not beat kids and then try to rationalise it as the kid's fault.

I remember what it was like to be a kid, and I remember other kids.
If by some miracle I ever get married, I’m definitely using corporal punishment. Not as often as my parents, mind you, but still.

Why?

Why hit your kids, and why put the blame on the kid getting hit?

[Galloism]

Or we could not beat kids and then try to rationalise it as the kid's fault.

I remember what it was like to be a kid, and I remember other kids.
If by some miracle I ever get married, I’m definitely using corporal punishment. Not as often as my parents, mind you, but still.

It’s one of those things that should only be used sparingly and when other forms of correction have already failed.

Ultimately, if it’s a choice between my kid getting a red bottom or sneaking out at night again and risk getting hit by a car, the red bottom is the better choice.

[Galloism]

I remember what it was like to be a kid, and I remember other kids.
If by some miracle I ever get married, I’m definitely using corporal punishment. Not as often as my parents, mind you, but still.

Why?

Why hit your kids, and why put the blame on the kid getting hit?

Not being an asshole, but what is your go to punishment?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I remember what it was like to be a kid, and I remember other kids.
If by some miracle I ever get married, I’m definitely using corporal punishment. Not as often as my parents, mind you, but still.

Why?

Why hit your kids, and why put the blame on the kid getting hit?

Authoritarianism.

[Esalia]

Why?

Why hit your kids, and why put the blame on the kid getting hit?

Not being an asshole, but what is your go to punishment?

Since I'm not a parent, I don't have one.

I can tell you that it certainly wouldn't be corporal punishment, if I ever become a parent.

[Galloism]

Not being an asshole, but what is your go to punishment?

Since I'm not a parent, I don't have one.

I can tell you that it certainly wouldn't be corporal punishment, if I ever become a parent.

What would be your first go to punishment?

Let’s start easy, and say the child is 5, and doesn’t want to go to school.

[Disgraces]

Why?

Why hit your kids, and why put the blame on the kid getting hit?

Authoritarianism.

Can you stop spreading propaganda everywhere?