Tawnos
Regular Member
I can't think of a better standard, overall. It's by no means perfect, but the "reasonable man" doctrine is the basis of our legal system.Hmmm....Forgetting for a minute any advocates of such abuse.....I'm becoming interested in where the line should be drawn with respect to the rights of all involved. What you wrote sounds like a "reasonableness standard".
I can't say I'm enamored of such standards as they seem to shift too much with popular sentiment or judicial activism but is it the only choice here?
I'm hoping that as people get more educated, we move beyond the current view that any form of "swat on the rear" or similar is beneficial, when there are numerous studies, referenced in the links above, that show that corporal punishment is inherently inferior to other forms of discipline. Even so, I would agree that your definition is reasonable, even if I think there are better choices. As I think most people would. That type of near-consensus makes me think such a standard is the most workable, even if it's not perfect.I mean, I would say that it's unreasonable to spank a baby. I'd say that a swat on the rear of a toddler who doesn't understand right from wrong is only useful to scare them away from potential hazards. I'd say that once a child knows right from wrong spanking should be used very sparingly and usually to reinforce another form of punishment that was not headed. Lastly, after a child develops complex reasoning skills, I'd say that spanking is pretty much useless and taking away privileges is much more favorable.
That all seems "reasonable" to me, but therein lies the problem.
That's a good line of inquiry, and it's not one that can be immediately resolved. "Intent" does solve many issues, but there are others. E.g. if the parent "intended" to merely correct the child in a manner they believed to be in accordance with their (barbaric) system of beliefs, and injures the child in the process, does that mean they are fine to continue beating? When does intent collide with known or expected results, e.g. if I shoot a gun in the air, let's say as an intent to signal the start of a race, and I use real rounds that injure somebody, that intent certainly enters what punishment I'm given, but my foreknowledge of expected consequences also plays a role.A way to define what it's acceptable in black and white terms is what I always look for based on my political and moral philosophy. This may be the one that finally gets me.
When are certain rights enabled before the age of majority? As you can see by what I may find reasonable, I'm almost automatically giving more deference to the childs rights as time goes by. As a parent, I also should decide when a child is responsible enough for certain activities such as firing a gun so a parent definitely has some say. Quite a lot of latitude actually. So, where is the line?
I'm beginning to think that I hit the mark closest in my previous post with "intent". That solves most of the issues.
Where do we draw that line? I don't know, but I know from the research I've done that my personal line stops short of physical altercation. I try to convince others it's the best option, as well. However, some cases (such as the one in this video) are so blatantly obvious to me that anyone trying to defend the abusive actions therein become suspect.