1: This is true. To me this implies that there needs to be a lot more leeway, for instance in the use of force, than there would be against another adult. Whereas, against an adult, even certain forms of touching can constitute simple battery, but against one's own children even certain forms of
hitting - such as spanking - might not be "battery" at all. That doesn't mean there isn't a line.
As I was eating a sandwich and taking a break from the discussion, I was thinking about this issue.
How exactly do you legislate it?
Where do you draw the line?
What is (or should be) the letter of the law?
I concluded that there is no hard and fast law than can be written. It would, necessarily, always still depend on judgment; for instance, you might prohibit "unreasonable" or perhaps "unusual" force against one's children. This is OK because you need a jury anyway, but it occurred to me that this is exactly the sort of thing that inspired juries in the first place. You don't
need a highly specific law, with a clear line of conduct. What you
need, to have government rightly take action in specific cases of child abuse, is nothing more nor less than evidence of conduct so obviously egregious and harmful than you could convince 12 jurors, selected
by lot from the citizenry, to take action (which action they - the jury - would directly decide).
And who but the offending parents could reasonably find fault with such action (whatever it may be), assuming the normal avenues of appeal are open and due process has been observed?
Basically, this is an issue for juries, not legislators. (But then, when is this ever not so? After all, even homicide may not be a criminal act, if justified. And who but a jury should decide whether
anything is justified?)
The problem - but, then again, this is this problem with all criminal offenses of every sort - is that a legislature can write some ridiculous law which
sounds good on paper - or, perhaps more likely, in words ("Gee, who could oppose a law against HURTING TEH CHILDREN?") - and then judges can convince a jury that they have
no choice but to convict over any technical violation of that law's language (with absolutely no regard for the justice or appropriateness of the penalty or action assigned by the law). Also, that
voire dire has been grossly overextended and probably ought to be eliminated entirely. And, of course, that the government has empowered itself to actually break up a family without resorting to a jury at all - which should be completely banned. (Government should never be able to take any action whatsoever against the lives, freedom, or property of an individual without first getting the approval of a jury.)
Frankly, as I see it the only way to resolve the conflict is a substantial return to common law - castrate legislatures and empower juries.
/long-winded tangent
2. I'm not sure I see the validity of this argument. First of all, I kind of doubt that there really is a huge difference in the percentage of people who are aggressive to other adults vs those who are aggressive towards their children. But even if there is a difference, so what? The overwhelming majority of people are basically good, nonaggressive people. The same is true for parents. Does that somehow mean the victims of those few who
are aggressive deserve less protection by the law?
