CA Spanking Bill Dies

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:41:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Many parents reasonably believe that appropriate methods of parental discipline should ordinarily be decided by parents, not by the government. And while there is widespread agreement that child abuse does not fall within the realm of appropriate discipline and should be criminalized, there is widespread disagreement whether spanking, without more, constitutes abuse.

A California legislator learned that lesson when she introduced a bill to criminalize the spanking of a child who hasn't reached the age of 4.

That proposal would have covered even a swat on the rear and made offenses punishable by up to a year in jail.

The bill found little support among other legislators, who reasonably believe that a quick paddling of an infant shouldn't subject a parent to a jail term.

The legislator's new proposal "would criminalize parental discipline involving a closed fist, belt, electrical cord, shoe or other objects." She denies that the new bill is a face-saving measure, but since California already has a variety of statutes criminalizing child abuse, it isn't clear that this one is really necessary.

< Senate Democrats Consider New Approach to Iraq | 100 Years in Prison, Not Really, For Soldier in Iraqi Rape, Murder >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CA Spanking Bill Dies | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Bad law.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by kdog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:12:44 PM EST

I'm glad it was shot down. Personally, I don't think spanking is necessary in order to discipline, I never had a hand raised to me growing up, not even the lil' smack on the arse. I learned not to run in traffic and not to touch a hot stove. (Though, it could be argued my old man raising his voice was scarier than a spanking and did the disciplinary trick)

That being said, I've met too many people who were spanked as kids who turned out just fine to say it should be criminalized. And in general, enough is enough with the criminalization of minor crap.

Spanking ban (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by scarshapedstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:19:35 PM EST

For a minute I thought John Ashcroft was involved somehow...

and, on our favorite other subject (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 07:23:13 PM EST

and, if and when some of you ever revisit the issue of "child pornography" as it is defined and prosecuted by society, it seems to me that approximately the same method should be used on that subject. Assertions that certain conduct is "abuse" don't make it "abuse," and society should only criminalize what it can document does harm. Sorry to be such a blockheaded simpleton, but I prefer evidence and proof to assertions.

It's part of my religious background--not the abuse, but expecting proof.

: TL, you would hate (none / 0) (#18)
by bx58 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:44:59 PM EST

to think that a guy who thinks like this should live next to a school? If you don't drop a dime I will.

People who even swat their kids... (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by Dadler on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:47:39 PM EST

...are abusing them. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are ready and willing to physically strike a child in the name of "teaching" the child proper behaviour.

Even if you swatted an adult, it would be a crime.

But we treat children like property or pets, not like litte people.

Wow (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:05:27 PM EST

And here I thought this thread would be a non-starter, but right off the bat we have the proclamation that even "swatting" your kid is abuse.

As far as I'm concerned if you swat your kid because you've lost your temper, that's abuse (though not often criminal).

I seem to remember a story you told about showering with your 4-year old son and how he ran from the shower terrified of his dad's "hairy a$$."

Now that's abuse. :-)


Defend striking a child (none / 0) (#7)
by Dadler on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:25:28 PM EST

First, and this should be obvious, the only reason anyone strikes a child is because they are angry, are reacting thoughtlessly to that anger. What person who hasn't lost their temper is striking children. Tell me the last time you saw anyone calmly and rationally striking a child.

This argument is insane.

It takes a profound lack of insight into human development to think that striking a child will do anything. Explain to me, in logical fashion, why even swatting adults "to make them learn" is criminal and considered ineffective, and why striking a CHILD is considered good parenting and effective.

Try really hard.

You can't. You will be rationalizing and simply repeating the same mistakes your parents made with you, like we all do in many ways. Listen, pal, I suffered from abuse as a kid, at the hands of a stepfather I thought about killing several times when I was only 10 or 11 and he was "spanking" me or my little brother (and spanking is what he considered it, quoting from the bible about sparing the rod and spoiling the children). I still, to this day, catch myself in moments of anger sounding like that pr*ck. Try to understand what that says about human psychology, child development. I find myself imitating a parent figure I hated with every fiber of my being. So it's pretty certain others imitate less obvious but certainly seriously harmful behavior -- and never consider that it is such.

Yes yes, a person can lightly bop a child in the butt, but they are doing so because of a lack of imagination and skill. They have forgotten what it was like to be a child. Period.

I'd also suggest that what keeps a kid from darting out into the street again is the fear (and probably anger) that was/is in your voice, Wile E., not the violence (that your refuse to consider such) in your hand.

As for my butt, I agree, that's some serious abuse.


: OK (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:40:45 PM EST

"First, and this should be obvious, the only reason anyone strikes a child is because they are angry, are reacting thoughtlessly to that anger. What person who hasn't lost their temper is striking children. Tell me the last time you saw anyone calmly and rationally striking a child.
This argument is insane. "
That is patently false. MANY parents strike their children because they believe (rightly or wrongly) it is necessary to teach a lesson or correct misbehavior and not because they are angry. I'd bet many can relate stories of misbehaving and mom saying dad was going to whip them when he got home and that dad did do it-- not because he was angry or lost his temper but because he viewed it as his "job."
"It takes a profound lack of insight into human development to think that striking a child will do anything."
You have concluded you are the sole source of insight into human development? That's your entitlement but others are entitled to disagree with you. Also, if corporal punishment doesn't "do anything" why would you oppose it? Obviously, you must believe it does "something"-- you just conclude that something is something bad.
"Explain to me, in logical fashion, why even swatting adults "to make them learn" is criminal and considered ineffective, and why striking a CHILD is considered good parenting and effective."
I can think of several reasons quickly. Because some parents believe that their children will not grasp and appreciate verbal explanations in certain situations but will appreciate that getting spanked means don't do that again. Because some parents believe in the concept of PUNISHMENT in addition to the concept of correction and feel that inflicting pain is an effective punishment. because many parents believe THEY benefitted from physical discipline imposed by their parents and based on their personal opinion think it works.
"Try really hard."
It doesn't require trying hard. it merely requires a moment's considerations of views other than your owns and the ability to analyze things with some reference beyond your experience.
For the record, I have never spanked my child and choose not to do so because I believe I can instill proper discipline and respect more effectively in other ways. However, I am not so presumptuous as to conclude that my opinion is the only justifiable one.

: Dadler.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by kdog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:43:23 PM EST

Not to minimize at all serious abuse like you describe, but hear me out.
Look at the semantics of it...do you trust the authorities in California to consistently act in the best interests of each child if spanking is criminalized? Is it better for a child to be put in foster care or a state-run home than to be with a birth-parent who uses light-spanking to discipline? All the horror stories I hear about foster and state care, I'm not so sure.
I agree with you that spanking is not necessary to properly raise a kid. But criminalizing spanking is another one of our societies famous cures that could easily end up being worse than the disease.
There will always be ugliness in the world, brother...I'm more concerned with staying free than ridding society of all the ugliness, not that it is even possible to do so.

: Dadler (none / 0) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:40:02 PM EST

Tell me the last time you saw anyone calmly and rationally striking a child.
OK, the last time my 5 year-old got his butt swatted. And the other 3 times he's gotten his butt swatted. (Yes, my wife and I have kept count)
You really can't imagine a situation where one would swat their child's butt not having lost one's temper? Where's that godd@m free American imagination of yours?
Just because, perhaps, you've only been hit by someone who's lost their temper and/or you've only hit others when you've lost your temper, does not mean the rest of us have that issue.
As an aside, who do you like for best screenplay?

: Of (none / 0) (#11)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:07:15 PM EST

course striking and spanking are not the same.

I spanked (none / 0) (#2)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:53:48 PM EST

My kid back when he was three for darting out in front of traffic in front of our house. I guess I should have pulled little Erik aside and reasoned with him. He would have remembered that instead of the spanking. right?


Physical violence (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by Al on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:16:45 PM EST

Spanking is physical violence. It may not seem much to you, but you're not small and four years old. The rationale for spanking is that you're teaching the kid a lesson by making him/her afraid of getting hit. All you're actually teaching them is to be afraid of people who can hit them, including their own parents, who they're supposed to be able to trust.

Someone has to speak up for the little ones. They have as much right not to be hit by anyone as you or I. Discipline my foot. Do you go around hitting people when you think they've done something wrong? I hope not. Do you think it's OK for someone else to hit you when you screw up? After all, it's for your own good.

: Is there really (none / 0) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:27:25 PM EST

The rationale for spanking is that you're teaching the kid a lesson[my bold]
only one rational?

Once again where to draw the lines is the issue (none / 0) (#4)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:07:14 PM EST

In the abstract, nearly everyone agrees parents should be free to impose "reasonable" discipline on their own children and almost everyone agrees that even parents should not be allowed to "abuse" kids.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to draw lines that please everyone and, in a case like this it might be impossible to draw any lines that do not displease close to or even more than half the population.

But lines have to be drawn unless one believes the rights of a parent are so sacrosanct that acts which would not be permitted inany other contect are permissible when committed against one's own child.

Some feel all use of physical violence should be illegal; some go further than that and believe that verbal acts can constitute abuse that should be illegal. Some feel that deprivation punishments or exemplary punishments are abusive and should be illegal.

On the other hand, may belied that raising welts with a belt or paddle is perfectly acceptable. Some feel that striking a blow to the face in anger can be justified by certain misbehaviors.

... and the list goes on and on.

Yet, we must have laws and in reality VERY FEW people (and a tiny number of sane ones) believe the government should not play a role in deciding what is "appropriate" for parents to do to their children. Rather what we have is a multitude of opinions about how government should perform that role and what the laws should be.

Those laws must necessarily distinguish between legal and illegal illegal conduct somewhere along the spectrum. We can all have our opinions and disagreements as to where the lines should be drawn but government exists to draw such lines.

You know the kids are watching don't ya? (none / 0) (#5)
by bx58 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:07:32 PM EST

Twenty years ago, my ten year old got way to smart-mouthed with me and as I corrected her in a stern voice she tried to walk away. I pulled her back towards me and lightly squeezed her forearm to keep her there.

She looked up at me with a straightface and said "child-abuse,child-abuse." At that moment the irreversible power of the Nanny State stood between parent and child.

What a humbling experience.

re spanking ban (none / 0) (#15)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 07:13:35 PM EST

So, perhaps Jeralyn can laugh about this, but here are the thoughts of David the somewhat harmless "pedophile," ha, ha. After I'm done, you tell me who has contributed to your knowledge on this subject.

Some behaviors have been found to do long-term psychological or physical damage or to place the child at serious risk of such. Those behaviors include shaking the child, hitting the child in the head or face and for that matter, on the hands while he is exploring his environment. If I were king, we'd prohibit those behaviors shown by studies to do such harm. Or, if such hitting in the face or head were ever justified, it would be in extremely few and very rare circumstances. I'd like to link to the studies that show these things, but I can't figure your linking out. (And for what it matter, the original talkleft poster has one link that goes to a blank page, a link that supposedly would tell us California law, but is instead blank. So, for all you who say talkleft linking is easy and simple, call me back after you can do it right yourself.)
And the studies have also shown that mild-to-moderate spanking doesn't do psychological problems. In this case, see the study by UC Berkley by Diana Baumrind. You can find it on the web by searching.
The same study also finds that more than 90% of middle class white families had parents who employed spanking at some point. If we were to make the guess that 80% or more of parents are not "child abusers," then, their general practice would establish that spanking per se is not abuse.
Given 2 and 3 above, I believe a spanking ban would be a wicked imposition on families.
There is another factor to consider, which seems to be forgotten here. Some families in the past and perhaps some today had a tradition or enjoyed a birthday spanking. A simple search of the web would indicate that a lot of persons have fond memories of their birthday spanking or spankings. Again, no one has documented physical or psychological harm from such spankings, whether by parents or friends, and birthday spankings have been given by either.
Given the studies which have been done, to say that a swat on the behind, a birthday spanking, or mild-to-moderate discipline spanking constitute "abuse" seems to me to be merely an assertion without evidence or proof. If such really were "abuse," the evidence would be abundant.
So I oppose a spanking ban, but support prohibiting hitting the face, head, stomach, hands and feet. I'd also support prohibiting using a fist to hit a child anywhere as a part of discipline. These things are abusive and they do do long-term damage.

Ah the good old (none / 0) (#17)
by bx58 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 07:47:12 PM EST

birthday spanking! I knew it was coming but I couldn't believe it. Like freakin Santa Claus.

Take away the trenchcoat and the keyboard and they look just like everyone else.LMFAO


: hiding (none / 0) (#20)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 10:18:50 AM EST

Yeah, I'm hiding under every rock and behind every tree.

a "solution" in search of a problem (none / 0) (#19)
by cpinva on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:05:59 AM EST

i'm not even going to opine on all this. swatting my kids, when very young, was the most expeditious means of getting a point across; you don't "reason" with a 3 year-old, they haven't a clue, and you'll just get pissed off. not fair to either of you. they will, like pavlov's dogs, remember to not cross the street, without holding dad or mom's hand, because of it. it saved their life, and i'm not apologizing for it.

this lady has wayyyyyyyyyyy too much time on her hands.

: Here, here (none / 0) (#22)
by Slado on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 07:58:01 PM EST

I'm right there with ya.
See my post below. If you reason with a two year old you loose.

Spanking has it's place (none / 0) (#21)
by Slado on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 07:56:57 PM EST

First of all what is spanking? I think some immediately think of a movie where the old man tells the boy to head outside and pick up his whipping stick because he's about to get some justice.

My parents had a simple rule for me growing up. Capital punishment for Capital crimes.

If I was sticking a knife in a light socket I got a smack accross the bottom. if I was hitting my sister or trying to jump off the roof of the house into the pool I got a spanking.

I was never hit. I was spanked.

There is a huge difference and I'm glad Californians had sense enough to keep the government off the backs of the majority of parents that discipline their children. We have enough problems with bad parenting in this country (unwed teenage mothers, multiple divorces, abusive boyfreinds and step parents) without having the state round up the good parents because they think a little bottom music is abuse.