It also seems noteworthy to me that one of the arguments on the
list for having any bruise-inflicting corporal punishment of children be
criminal was equally applicable to minor spanking as well. The argument was,
"I have to wonder if there is anyone on this list who would not consider it a
battery (or assault depending on what your state calls what used to be common
law battery) if someone deliberately hit them to the point of bruising them.
Sounds like a tort or a crime to me, and I find it hard to imagine how a claim
of religious belief would justify it. I suppose adults could consent to such
interpersonal behavior. but since children cannot legally consent to such
harms, I have to wonder how Vance can justify such abuse." But I take it that
everyone on the list would consider it a battery if someone spanked them even
without bruising them, no?
So when the logic of the arguments suggests the illegality of all
corporal punishment, it seems reasonable for people who support some corporal
punishment to think that the other side's position would go beyond just
prohibiting bruising.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:01 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Actually, it didn't. It began with an inquiry into what level of insult (in the
broadest sense) to a child should be prosecuted as child abuse regardless of
the justification based on religious or even secular concepts of parental
discipline. I was attempting to draw a distinction between serious harm and
minor bruises--my example was a black-and-blue bum, which of course would
normally heal quickly. That *is* spanking. My suggestion is that the harm to
the child be proven as a matter of fact, rather than presumed as a matter of
law, in order to avoid defects in the legal adoption of theories that should
not be graven in stone.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Paul Finkelman
<paul.finkel...@yahoo.com<mailto:paul.finkel...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
Art:
This discussion began with a defense of "bruising" children. That is hardly
spanking. I think if you look at those beyond death row -- simply violent
criminals - you will find abuse in almost every circumstance.
----
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)
pf...@albanylaw.edu<mailto:pf...@albanylaw.edu>
www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com>
--- On Mon, 8/3/09, artspit...@aol.com<mailto:artspit...@aol.com>
<artspit...@aol.com<mailto:artspit...@aol.com>> wrote:
From: artspit...@aol.com<mailto:artspit...@aol.com>
<artspit...@aol.com<mailto:artspit...@aol.com>>
Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 9:08 PM
Because a few seriously abused children become murderers, society needs to
prohibit spanking?
In a message dated 8/3/09 9:05:21 PM,
hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> writes:
Paul is correct here. If you want to evidence of the causal connection between
the home situation and criminal behavior, read the files of the individuals who
are on death row. Not infrequently, it is hard to figure out who acted more
heinously -- the parents of the death row inmate or the death row inmate
himself. I'm not saying that home circumstances should be an adequate defense
to murder. Rather, as a society it is foolish not to make every effort to stem
harm to children.
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115)
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<http://mc/compose?to=religion...@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
--
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
vrko...@world.std.com<mailto:vrko...@world.std.com>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
