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.