In which I am late to the party

[mattmatt]

The thing I hate about school holidays is that suddenly there are children everywhere. How can they possibly have finished learning everything? And how come Playstation is only fun when they have homework to do, and the rest of the time their preferred pastime is "going to town to scuff my jeans up"?

Anyway, today, many of the children (and I use

Comments

[entomocephalous]

I too saw this stand. They said "A loving smack is not child abuse." I thought, yeah, that's right - it's an oxymoron. Thanks, also, for putting the issue so succinctly (bold text). Trust Matt to word things better than anyone else.

[theuns]

there are people who end up killing their own children simply because it is their inalienable (god-given?) right to smack your kids.

Ooh, nice hyperbole. 8)

You make the assumption that corporeal punishment causes greater harm than the absence thereof; my personal experience is at odds with this. Given that the old law allowed 'reasonable force', excessive force (i.e. anything that is societally agreed to be excessive) was already outlawed.

But then, I'm biased by the fact that I've had first-hand experience of corporeal punishment - and still consider it a viable form of deterrence. Can you demonstrate why it is unreasonable under all circumstances?

[mattmatt]

OK, firstly, my post makes it clear that I don't, in fact, think it's "unreasonable under all circumstances". However, I believe that in many, if not most, situations, there are more reasonable or helpful solutions.

Certainly, corporal punishment is more effective than no punishment. But it is important to compare like with like. If you mean that kids who aren't smacked are unruly and undisciplined, then in some cases I would agree. But not because these kids weren't smacked specifically, more because they were poorly disciplined.

[theuns]

OK, firstly, my post makes it clear that I don't, in fact, think it's "unreasonable under all circumstances".

That's the problem with writing it into law - unless you explicitly outline them in the law itself, there are no exceptions. Which means that, even though you may accept that there are circumstances where corporeal punishment is reasonable (i.e. appropriate), the law does not.

Certainly, corporal punishment is more effective than no punishment.

Different things work for different people - corporeal punishment is just one option to consider, in any given case. If it is used inappropriately, it obviously won't work - the same way that any other punishment will fail if used inappropriately.

Personally, I just find it sad that a law had to be changed from an adaptable, interpretable form to a rigid blind wording for no good reason that I have yet seen.

[mattmatt]

Additional thought:

What if the law still allowed the use of "reasonable force" against your wife?