Since we are being "personal" here I can only comment that the kid in my 
working class neighborhood who was regularly hit by his father with "the strap" 
-- ie: his dad's belt -- ending up killing 4 or 5 people in two DWI's after 
high school and was given the choice of the Marines (and Vietnam) or jail. He 
chose the Marines. I cannot prove his wreckless behavior was caused by his 
brutal father.  But I would not doubt it.  The father was abusive and bully.  

----

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



www.paulfinkelman.com

--- On Tue, 8/4/09, Brownstein, Alan <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:

From: Brownstein, Alan <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 6:43 PM




 
 






I find much of what Marci argues here persuasive, but get stuck
on the question of what constitutes abuse.  If you are my age (let’s
just say over 55 to generalize the point) and grew up in a working class or
lower middle class neighborhood, the norm was that kids got smacked around a
lot when their parents thought they misbehaved.  I don’t defend the
practice and didn’t follow my  parents  and their parental
cohorts example in raising my own children.  But I wouldn’t
characterize all these parents as child abusers either.   

   

I don’t doubt that we know more about the consequences of
child raising practices now than we did then and normative standards certainly
change over time. But some of the older members on the list may experience some
dissonance in having the environment we and our peers grew up in characterized
as abusive. 

   

Alan Brownstein 

   



From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
On
Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:35 PM

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment 



   

Vance--  Literally
hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others have shown that there is a
clearly marked tendency for abused children to have severe problems in
adulthood, including substance abuse, likelihood of suicide, and difficulties
with close relationships, among other problems.  These are statistical
studies that are the type routinely relied upon by, e.g., the insurance
industry to set risk.  Do you dispute this set of relationships?



Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the Ted
Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency.  Now, all of this is coming
out of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular contact with
individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this for yourself
anecdotally.  



Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course both are
important and relevant.  But if there are ways to create better conditions
so that we have fewer adults with problems, it is irrational for society to
ignore those possibilities.  



With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed,
right?  Surely there is no question that the death of a child
from a treatable ailment is a serious loss to society and should be prevented. 
And the way to prevent such deaths is to deter parents from permitting a child
to die or be disabled regardless of the parents' beliefs.



Marci





-----Original Message-----

From: Judith Baer <jb...@politics.tamu.edu>

To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>

Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 10:09 am

Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment 





Vance Koven
wrote: 





  





Many more people than those who are on death row (of whom
there are virtually none any more) suffered treatment that we might reprehend
or say was or was tantamount to child abuse, yet did not become killers,
rapists, etc. There is obviously something *else* involved in the equation that
either has not been adequately studied or that Marci is omitting from her
argument. 





  





Conceded,
Vance. (I considered responding "yeah, yeah, yeah" but thought
better of it.) But what if we change the topic from the causes of
violent crime to the ways to stop it? 





Judy Baer 





_______________________________________________To post, send message to 
religion...@lists.ucla.eduto 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. 



 


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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.


      
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to