Skip to main content

     Is our government now becoming a nanny government?  The law has its good intention, but when do government get into the kids-discipline business.  Another question is how do they implement the law,  are they going to have anti-spanking patrol giving tickets just like traffic tickets?  And are we going to see slow speed anti-spanking cops chasing after soccer moms for spanking offenses ?

    I agree this proposed law has good intention, but how practical is it to implement is another question.  I heard last night from a lawyer interview, and she said in California, children under age 5, their testimony is not admitted in a court. Who will be the witness in this kind of cases then?  You're going to see a lot of troubles in implementing this kind of law.  But if this passes, it will be another first from California.

Originally posted to darkhawk973 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:03 AM PST.

Poll

Do you support spanking law?

22%10 votes
70%31 votes
6%3 votes

| 44 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  so, if I slapp (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SadTexan, Bronx59

    a child's hand because she is about to stick a fork into an electric socket, am I going to jail?

    ...a dumbass law no doubt put fourth by a well-meaning person...

    "If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin

    by Matilda on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:26:26 AM PST

    •  What a nice Straw Man you have there (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bodean, timewarp

      No one is ever in the wrong for using reasonable means to protect someone.  This is a lame ass straw man you just knocked down, and I have been reading these straw men all over the internet the last two days and nothing in the Lieber proposal would do anything close to outlawing saving a life.

      http://gleic.blogspot.com/

      by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:41:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are incorrect (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stone soup

        No one, least of all me, is saying that it's ok to beat up on children.  Nevertheless, if you actually read the linked article, you will see that the suggested law does include slapping a child, and doesn't make any noted exceptions for the kind of thing you bring up

        I don't believe in spanking in general, and it should never OF COURSE  be done hard enough to actually hurt a child, but the fork in the socket example (or the child running into the road one for that matter) exactly the kind of situation that calls for a smack on the butt to get the child's attention, and reinforce the idea that what he/she is doing is not to be repeated.

        It isn't for punishment; is for safety, and for making an impression on someone not yet old enough to reason.

        I'm speaking as someone who, as a child, did try once to stick a bobby pin into  an outlet.  I'm glad mom smacked my hand.  It was a much milder way to show me the danger, as opposed to the alternative!

        "If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin

        by Matilda on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:00:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't accuse you of that (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't accuse you of wanting to beat children.  I am simply pointing out your straw man fallacy, and then you went ahead and set up another one. The idea that somehow I accused you of wanting to beat children is lunacy.  And I did read the article, yesterday, and wrote about it here: http://gleic.blogspot.com/...

          Just because the article doesn't specifically state that the law will make exception for lifesaving situations hardly means that exception won't be in the final bill.

          Be real, this has absolutely nothing to do with extreme circumstances of life and death.  This has to do with regular spanking of a child that is really abuse, but we have a grey area now that allows idiots to hit their kids and call it discipline.

          Read my earlier comment, or my blog, about my own observations of this type of abuse.

          http://gleic.blogspot.com/

          by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:13:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  So.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matilda, SFJen

    if some California parent gives a five-year-old a couple of slaps on the butt for running out into traffic, they could be in trouble.

    Meanwhile, corporal punishment (in the form of paddling) is still the norm in public schools (including high schools) in a good part of the US.

    This country is weird.

    •  Corporal Punishment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalLiberal

      Corporal Punishment has been outlawed in CA for quite a long time.  Which is why this isn't a bad law to me.  If a teacher can't do it, then why a parent?  I also don't think think the under 4 issue is anything more than a way to get the law passed.  But, if you don't spank your kid for 4 years, you probably won't after that.

      http://gleic.blogspot.com/

      by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:44:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because (0+ / 0-)

        If a teacher can't do it, then why a parent?

        A teacher is only a delegatee of the parent under the limited circumstances of school, and there has been a public policy decision (the correct one, in my view) that spanking is of such an intimate nature and its message so inherent to the parent-child relationship that teachers don't get to go there?

        Seems simple to me.  On the other hand, I'm not walking around with spanking angst, so don't need the strawman of the rights that people who are not a child's parents  to knock down when talking about the rights the child's parents have.  Constitutionally, a very different kettle of fish.

        My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

        by shanikka on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:13:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

          That I shouldn't have argued a straw man argument, but my point stands.

          Children get beaten under the guise of "spanking" and as most people will state, "I don't hit my children" and yet they seam to say it is OK if others do.  That is insanity because the reason they don't hit their own children is because they know it is inherently wrong, and abusive, so why let the monsters off the hook who do this to their kids all day long every day.

          Either read my comments below, or my blog: http://gleic.blogspot.com/...
          to see my own example of abuse being called discipline.

          http://gleic.blogspot.com/

          by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:19:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Remedy (0+ / 0-)

            For what you complain (that overwhelming minority of parents who, when spanking, go into the area of abuse) about is to support, encourage, and nurture parents who are clearly struggling, not criminalize them unless it is clearly abusive behavior.  It is to teach them what is, and is not, judicious and appropriate uses of spanking:  most critically, as the last, not first, resort of discipline.  It is to give them alternative methods.  

            I am well familiar with the corporal punishment statute in California and have read your description of the situation you are complaining about.  I personally read the situation you describe as one as which you stood and watched this occurring, and decided to judge this parent rather than actually help this parent, and now are using that experience as a political football because you have your own philosophical objection to it.  I know almost nobody who spanks a child under the age of 1 1/2, and what is a "spanking" at 1.5 rarely looks like a spanking at 3 -- unless you really are talking about an abusive parent, a circumstance which, again, the corporal punishment statute reaches to.  

            I find it notable that you admit to no training of any kind in child psychology yet already label the baby' in your anecdote "abusive" to others as a result of being spanked, because he hits other kids -- as if kids who have never had a spanking in their lives  don't also regularly knock the shit out of other kids.  Spend some time in a preschool:  I double-dog dare you to do so then continue to make such a hard and fast claim.  Certainly, child psychology has never done so.  They are interested in facts, not rhetoric.

            I also read your website which merely replicates the argument you made here. But no matter what your emotional reactions to the issue, your out-of-hand rejection of what the actual literature demonstrates (which is that spanking can be effective, harmless, discipline, judiciously used) is no more of a basis to claim that someone else is "wrong" than it is to claim that spanking is "abuse."

            My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

            by shanikka on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:23:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Besides the idiot from Oklahoma (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Luminous Animal, timewarp

              Give me more sources that prove your claim that this works.  Ever.

              ECE professionals never would claim that this disciplinary tactic works.  And as I may not have the personal training, I am married to an ECE professional, so I get into these discussions often.  And I do spend time in preschools, so since you don't know me or my personally history except for a few comments here, you should think before you spew such silly nonsense about my personal association with such real world experience.

              And, I saw the abuse at 6 months, and it was called "spanking" by the mother.  That is the problme with the current law.  There is a grey area that allows people to do this.  The kid is now almost 3, so he has so far grown up being hit, and now hits others without provocation.

              The kid is abusive.  He has hit me, and my wife, and other children.  Where the hell did he learn that behavior from?  Physical acts such as hitting are learned behaviors, but since you're the expert you should be able to site some claims of the opposite being true.

              And yeah, I saw the hitting by the mother, and I do judge her.  It happened in my house once.  She hasn't been back since, but at the same time I can't tell someone to stop hitting their kid in the grocery store, because it is the best way for some dumbasses to discipline their child because they haven't figured out that using words and helping your child learn new behaviors is better than scaring the shit out of them constantly.

              This law isn't about touching your child.  It is about hitting.  If a kid needs to be removed from a situation because they are being bad, you do it.  If they need a time out you do it.  But hitting a kid is not the proper way to deal with bad behavior, because children that age want more than anything to please their parents, but hitting doesn't show them how to do better the next time.  It is extraneous violence towards someone that can have their behavior altered in many more productive ways.  If you hit a kid you still have to reason with them and tell them why you did what you did, so why not punish them in another way?

              Oh, and Arnold says he would probably sign the law.  He has 4 kids and doesn't hit them, and that isn't mentioned in the article, but the fact that a lawmaker who represents children, as well as adults is made fun of because she is childless is mentioned.  Funny how that bias doesn't strike anyone here as odd, but anytime Bush is praised by an article, it is clearly RNC talking points and writer bias.

              http://gleic.blogspot.com/

              by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:54:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If a kid needs to be removed from a situation... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gleic, Luminous Animal

                That's right, you pick them up and remove them from the situation.  And you TALK to them, teach them to understand logic and reason rather than fear.  

                People who defend "spanking" love to use the "running into traffic" analogy.  Which is stupid; if your child   is so young that it does not understand the danger that moving cars pose, 1st, should not be in traffic situations w/out supervision, and if for some reason it heads for the street, it is far more effective and less traumatizing to the child to simply restrain them from running into traffic.  

                I live in NYC.  There are lots of parents with toddlers on the streets who are either restrained in a stroller or watched carefully.  I have never once seen a parent hit a kid who is about to step off the sidewalk at an intersection (which they do tend to do at that age), rather they tend to take the child's hand and explain that they MUST stay on the sidewalk.

                And if you are worried about other dangers in your house, then you need to spend a little time childproofing it, and keep it that way until the child is old enough to understand that it is not such a good idea to stick things in electrical outlets, for instance...

                There is always a more effective and more humane alternative to terrorizing children with the threat of physical violence.

              •  You're Making the Claim (0+ / 0-)

                That the hundreds of millions of people who have been reared with spanking as part of their parents' arsenal of discipline have been abused.  That's an extraordinary claim, in light of thousands of years of parental history of spanking, which only began being challenged by new age psychology starting in around the 1970's.

                So you prove your claim.

                You can't.  Why can't you? Because nobody who has actually studied spanking and its impact on children longitudially has concluded that it is spanking in and of itself that is abusive and harmful to children.  There is spanking, then there is abusive spanking.  Spanking as the default rule for discipline is as ineffective long-term as those methods that always gently tells the child he/she has a "time out" when he has willfully acted out.  Effective Discipline is necessarily child-dependent.

                Since there is no study that actually proves your claim of spanking=always abuse, those who believe as you do resort to ridiculously emotive language as your backstop.  It's OK if emotionally you feel as you do; after all, nobody is telling you how to raise your kid.

                All that they ask is that, unless you can actually prove abuse, you stop telling others how they should raise theirs.  

                My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

                by shanikka on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 06:21:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Interesting... (0+ / 0-)

                  How you speak of kids as though they are possessions.  In conversation, I speak of my children in the same way that I speak of my friend, my spouse, my parent.  But the use of the word "my" in my usage does not imply that I own any of these people (including my children) in any way.

                  Yet I am struck by how you refer to "my" children as your children.  Emphasizing a possesive that does not exist in my relationship with any other human being.  My children are not my property.

                  Furthermore, you keep saying that there are no studies that prove that hitting children is harmful?  Can you prove that, or is it simply that you have no wish to read the research that disproves something which is near and dear to your heart, ie, the "right" to hit your kids as you see fit.  

                  Interestingly, the only serious advocates of spanking as an effective means of discipline come from religious fundamentalists.  I have never read such a perspective from a secular perspective.  

                  When I google "studies harmful effects of spanking" the very 1st result gives me this website: Corporal Punishment of children: Studies of its effectiveness and dangers.

                  A couple of typical quotes:

                  "...there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that when done by a loving parent in a the context of love that it [corporal punishment] is harmful to children." James Dobson, from an episode of Focus Radio.

                  contrasted with this perspective...

                  "...there appears to be a linear association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems." Dr. Harriet McMillan, in a Reuters article "Punished for life: Canadian study links spanking to addiction and psychiatric disorders."

                  I challenge you to produce a non-religious authority who defends "spanking" as a useful and constructive child-rearing practice.

                  ...Christopher D. Dugan reviewed the book by Murray A. Straus and Denise A. Donnelly called "Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families and Its Effect on Children." 5 He gave an excellent summary of recent studies into the effect of spanking on children, both at the time and later in adulthood. He wrote, in part:

                     "...in the longer run, spanking has no measurable beneficial effects at all, and is associated with a variety of long term negative effects. The more children are spanked, the more they assault siblings and other children. The more children are spanked, the more their rates of age-adjusted antisocial behavior increase over time. Spanking in childhood is associated with higher levels of alcoholism, depression, masochistic fantasy, and suicidal ideation later in life."

                     "As more family violence data accumulates, more evidence accumulates in support of Straus's view of normative forms of violence 'spilling over' into criminal forms. Parents who spank their children are significantly more likely to also physically abuse them than parents who don't. Parents who spank their children are more likely to physically abuse each other. And physically abused children are even more likely to grow up to commit crimes against non-family members than spanked children, who are in turn more likely to do so than non-spanked children."

                     "The mounting tide of research on spanking resembles the growth of research on the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. In both cases, no single study settled the issue. Every study had its weaknesses and its strengths. But when all of the available studies are viewed as a whole, a grim picture emerges: of a widespread, culturally ingrained habit which causes grave harm, bit by bit, by subtle increments."

                     "The parallels between smoking and spanking extend beyond the similarity of research study designs. Both are addictive practices justified by their practitioners in similar ways. 'I've smoked for fifty years and I feel great!' 'I was spanked and it never did ME any harm!' Bit by bit, the mounting evidence linking smoking with cancer eroded much of the cultural denial. Straus's book is at once a recognition of a similar trend towards popular identification of spanking as a harmful, injurious act, and an influence furthering that trend."

                  The point is that there is LOTS of evidence that the use of corporal punishment is harmful, the question is is whether those, who have so staunch in their defense of their right to hit their kids as they see fit, have the capacity to really hear the evidence with an open mind.

                  •  Thanks for Lecturing Me (0+ / 0-)

                    About my "perspective" on children.  I could do the same.  Wouldn't make either one of us right, but I could match you word for word about the ill-advisedness of yours.  Using actual data about child misbehavior, child violence and child criminality --- and how it has actually gone through the roof since the 1970's when people were told NOT to spank their kids.

                    You keep saying there's Lots of evidence, but have cited not a single study.  To show you that I, unlike you, am not merely emoting all over the place, I will cite the study done by UC Berkeley in 1999.  You can find links to it all over the 'net, but let me know if you cannot somehow.  As well as the Danish study done in the mid-1990's (I believe it was 1995) which actually also considered demographics and race.

                    Can you also cite a primary source study done by some actual scientists? All you've quoted above is James Dobson and his ilk, and I never pay attention to the ignorant.

                    My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

                    by shanikka on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 04:22:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Don't tell that to Bobby Fielder! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        timewarp

        Corporal Punishment should be outlawed in schools.  Kids who are paddled are more likely to grow up and be pathetic people who's only salvation comes from being a Republican...it fits well with the anger.

        •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)

          And are more likely to look at the attempt to create a just, equitable and compassionate society as a move to create a "nanny state."

          People who have been  brutalized, either emotionally or physically (actually, a false distinction) tend to have "issues" with empathy later in life.  

          Those who think that a "little slap" is not painful and humiliating, both physically and emotionally, should try to imagine what it would feel like if a person more powerful than you decided that it was his right to hit you for your own good.  I mean, why don't cops give speeders a good whack for speeding, ie for endangering their own lives as well as their passengers and other drivers...?

    •  No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalLiberal

      the law bans spanking of children less than 3 years of age.  I didn't know about corporal punishment in public schools.

      The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. - John Adams

      by tipsymcstagger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:49:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Law (4+ / 0-)

    The law as it stands now already defines spanking and has created a grey area where stupid people hit their kids on a regular basis for no good reason, and call it spanking.

    The only thing Liber is doing is removing the grey area from the child abuse statutes, but at the same time making it a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

    This is already a crime if it is a baby sitter, or a nanny, or a teacher, why then is it OK for parents?

    I know someone who has been spanking her son since before he could crawl.  She would put him on his back to change his diaper, and of course crying and rolling over, and all sorts of things ensued, because he was a baby.  She would spank him, hard.  He now cringes when she tells him no, and covers his ass everytime she comes near him.  And since he is now 2 he has started hitting people when he doesn't want to share, or is confused.  Now you will say, "well that's abuse" but she will say, "I get to spank my child."  That right there shows we already have a grey area that is hardly worth keeping.

    She has created a violent child, and it is the duty of the state to protect children from idiots like her.

    This law will not be easily enforced, but it will continue to reinforce the stigma around hitting your child, for any reason.

    I really don't understand how protecting children from abuse is being construed as nanny-state overreaching.  This is hardly cause for alarm, and is nothing compared to the Draconian drug laws this country has, or the censorship laws we adhere to.

    http://gleic.blogspot.com/

    by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:38:54 AM PST

    •  Then any law should make a distinction (0+ / 0-)

      between excessive, continual spanking vs. spanking/slapping when it's absolutely necessary.  Unfortunately, sometimes a quick slap is the only way to get a child's attention when it's needed in a hurry, especially when they ignore repeated verbal warnings.

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:04:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No its not (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Luminous Animal, timewarp

        A quick slap from an adult to a child is an ignorant, viloent way to behave toward someone smaller and weaker than you are.

        No professional will ever sya slapping, spanking, or any other thing you want to call it is necessary.  Even the "expert" in this article doesn't say it is necessary, he just claims it isn't necessarily bad, which I disagree with, but your claim is absolutely false.

        http://gleic.blogspot.com/

        by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:32:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Children have human rights... (4+ / 0-)

    The point is not how to enforce it...the point is that spanking is hitting, and hitting is assault.  As the law stands now, if my husband slapped me, he would be guilty of assault, a felony in most states including california.  So why should it be any different if he hits my children?  

    Assaulting another human being, for any reason is morally wrong...period.

    And are you aware that by using the "nanny state" meme, you sound exactly like a rabid rightwinger?

  •  All I Needed to Know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stone soup

    About the idiot who proposes this law is that she has no children, but somehow believes that her relationship with her pet is supposed to be similar.

    Of course, the fact that it is said more than once in the underlying article that there is no evidence that judicious use of spanking as part of discipline harms children has been utterly ignored in favor of the "OMG it's ABUSE" mantra.

    Thank God my kids are grown or they would have to come get them.  Because they were spanked, and show no evidence of having been harmed.  As opposed to most of their peers for whom a well-considered butt wuppin might have done their disrespectful, rule-disobeying, bad attitude now a nightmare to more than just themselves some good.  But of course their parents would have never dreamed of such a thing, being good liberals.

    My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

    by shanikka on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:08:17 AM PST

    •  I was never spanked (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalLiberal, timewarp

      And I am most likely just as upstanding a citizen as your children.

      But, about the article.  The article is constructed in a way to make fun of Lieber, to make her look nutty, and to make fun of her proposal.  Maybe that is a little bias showing through from the writer?  How about the fact that Arnold said he would probably sign such a bill if it got to him, that isn't in the article, and why not?  because he is the man of the hour and if the article stated that fact then it would make Lieber look prescient and in with the Governor.  So don't act like articles aren't filled with biases and distortions and that she wasn't made fun of on purpose.

      http://gleic.blogspot.com/

      by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:32:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm Happy (0+ / 0-)

        That you were never spanked and that you have turned out OK.  Would that some other folks' kids fared as well.

        That's as much evidence in support of your position as it is mine.  Which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense, since whenever you are talking about child discipline you are talking about -- if you have parents with any skills whatsoever -- an individualized assessment and evaluation of best practices based on the child himself/herself.

        I did not read the article as making fun of this woman.  I read a fact (she has no kids and believes that pets and children should be treated the same) and concluded personally that made her an ignoramus when it came to child-rearing issues and what is, or is not, "best" for children.

        That all by itself makes her look stupid, to people who have actually raised kids.  She didn't need this article to do that.

        My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

        by shanikka on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:11:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What I get from your post... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gleic, Bodean, SoCalLiberal, timewarp
      is that children and teenagers will only behave when raised in an environment of abuse and fear.

      Welcome Michael Moore Bulletin Board refugees, www.upsizethis.org

      by Luminous Animal on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:35:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (0+ / 0-)

        Considering that I never mentioned fear or abuse (I mentioned spanking; it is your biases that deem that abuse, whatever the actual facts are) I have no clue where you got what you claim to get from my post.

        My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

        by shanikka on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:08:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gleic, timewarp
          The logic behind spanking is that it will inflict some measure of pain in order to mold behavior.  In my book, inflicting pain on another being is abuse.  And certainly a child is going to want to avoid that pain, not based on logic or reason, but through fear of being hurt again.

          Welcome Michael Moore Bulletin Board refugees, www.upsizethis.org

          by Luminous Animal on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:29:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Understood Your Opinion (0+ / 0-)

            The first time.

            But how much that lines up with facts is where the debate lies.  And certainly, when we're dealing with criminalizing any behavior, we should be crystal clear that we are basing such a decision only on facts of harm, not opinions of harm that the literature does not confirm.

            My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

            by shanikka on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 06:14:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The law is rather clear when applied to adults (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              timewarp

              If you hit your spouse or partner, it is considered "domestic violence".  If you hit another adult other than your spouse or partner, it is considered assault.  If you hit someone else's children, it is considered assault.  The same standards should apply to ones own children.

              Long lasting harm is not the issue.  Immediate harm is.  I was beaten by an ex-husband.  I called the cops, he was jailed, I left him and moved on.  There is no long lasting emotional scars but it sure as hell hurt when it happened.

              If spanking does not harm in the immediate sense, then what is the point of using it?

              Welcome Michael Moore Bulletin Board refugees, www.upsizethis.org

              by Luminous Animal on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:41:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You Know (0+ / 0-)

                Little about domestic violence law too, obviously.  Because it is not always deemed domestic violence.  That is a question of fact.  Sometimes it's mutual combat, sometimes it's self-defense, and sometimes it is indeed domestic violence.

                I don't want to fence with you about theory and analogy.  You continue to ignore my basic point:  if you are going to criminalize a parental behavior that has existed throughout the millenium, then you need to demonstrate through the actual literature addressing the subject that the behavior is harmful.  This subject has now been studied and the conclusions are undisputed by anyone actually doing science (as opposed to doing personal moral beliefs):  judicious use of spanking does not, without more, harm children.  End of scientific story.  Given that, there is no basis for criminalizing the conduct.  If one wants to reduce the use of spanking, I'm all for it -- but then you're talking about programs that support parents in learning and applying alternative methods, not programs that deem people criminals for using the ones they know.  

                My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

                by shanikka on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 04:18:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  What about verbal and mental abuse? (0+ / 0-)

    They are much worse than any spanking (as long as it doesn't cross the line to full on physical abuse.)  If they want a law against spanking, why not laws to prevent parents from mentally abusing their children (which can leave a permanent "scar" on their psyche)?  What about verbal abuse - parents who constantly put down their children or call them "losers"?
     Geez.  The person who proposed this law needs to get realistic.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:57:16 AM PST

  •  Just please tell me (0+ / 0-)

    that this is not an issue that democrats will line up to support.  Whatever your feelings about spanking, its political suicide.

    •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      timewarp

      Arnold says he will probably sign it, not that you could see that from this article, so this has some bipartisan support. But it isn't political suicide in this state.  Almost nothing is.  We have too gerrymandered of districts for something like this to cause political suicide.  For an individual, or the group as a whole.

      And beyond that if this passes no one will care anymore, and it will live on because no legislator will want to be the person who wrote the law overturning this because then they would be the person who legalized child abuse.

      As a matter of fact you can already see the Republicans hedging on this because they all claim not to spank their children, but don't necessarily want this law, but I am sure they don't want to be seen as anti-child either, so they will probably vote for it.

      Political suicide is being caught with a dead prostitute, not suggesting anti-spanking legislation.

      http://gleic.blogspot.com/

      by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:00:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because, (0+ / 0-)

        even if it is in California, and even if it is a "safe" issue there, I would really dislike seeing republicans across the country brand democrats with this issue.  It just feeds into the idea of "know-it-all-elite-liberals-who-want-to-tell-the-rest-of-
        us-what-to-do".  Not a plus for us as we try to argue that government should stay out of family life.

        •  Your logic is flawed (0+ / 0-)

          Right now with all of the problems of the country, and all of them already being dumped in the Republicans laps you really think anti-spanking legislation is going to hurt us nationally?  

          Picture this:

          Dem candidate:  We need to get out of Iraq now!
          Rep Candidate: Do you support anti-spanking California?
          Audience:  BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

          That thinking leads down the road of not wanting to stand for anything because someone might not like us.

          I for one am not going to worry about standing up for my beliefs, as this thread clearly shows.

          Whether you agree with the legislation or not is a seperate matter, but not legislating something simply because Republicans might call us names is not an argument against doing it.  Especially because they do call us names anyway.

          2006 proved that having some sort of spine for issues is better than having no spine at all.

          http://gleic.blogspot.com/

          by gleic on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:28:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  civilized behaviour (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    timewarp

    I'm shocked at the number of otherwise thoughtful, liberal people who believe that corporal punishment of children can be justified.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site