Another example of the problems of democracy

[murraysovereign]

Settle down, Peter. If you hadn't pulled that article from a conservative Catholic organization with a clear bias in favour of whuppin', you'd get a more balanced view of the decision.

 

In this case the Supreme Court was being asked to overturn the existing law, which says in effect that spanking is just fine within reasonable limits. The Supreme Court refused to overturn the law, so spanking is still fine within reasonable limits. Okay so far? But they did take the opportunity to clarify those "reasonable limits". Children under 2 should not be spanked, nor should children over 12, and at no time should spankings be administered using implements like belts or bamboo rods or baseball bats. Oh, and no head shots. All this ruling did was clarify the distinction between "spanking" and "beating"; between "discipline" and "assault".

 

Maybe you'd prefer that parents be legally permitted to pound their children into comas if they see fit, because as parents that's their God-given right and the state has no business interfering. How would you have preferred the Supreme Court rule on this issue? No limits at all so long as you don't kill the little bugger, or perhaps you'd dispense with that limit also? Perhaps some limits, but with no clear definition? Or perhaps you have clear limits in mind, but your limits would be different from those the court has set down. I think the decision is pretty reasonable. I too think parents should be able to administer a swat to the behind on occasion without fear of criminal prosecution, but I have a hard time with allowing it to progress into all-out floggings and head punches. I have a hard time with spanking infants, too, due simply to the potential for lasting physical harm - ever heard of "Shaken Baby Syndrome"? It doesn't take much to cause permanent, even lethal brain damage in infants. Call me what you will, but I think things like that should be against the law. It sounds to me from your comments that your views are perhaps similar, so I'm puzzled why you're so horrified by this ruling. Perhaps you just accepted the "spin" of your chosen source without questioning their own biases because they provided exactly the (conservative) spin you were looking for?

[Peter_Puget]

Settle down, Peter. If you hadn't pulled that article from a conservative Catholic organization with a clear bias in favour of whuppin', you'd get a more balanced view of the decision.

 

In this case the Supreme Court was being asked to overturn the existing law, which says in effect that spanking is just fine within reasonable limits. The Supreme Court refused to overturn the law, so spanking is still fine within reasonable limits. Okay so far? But they did take the opportunity to clarify those "reasonable limits". Children under 2 should not be spanked, nor should children over 12, and at no time should spankings be administered using implements like belts or bamboo rods or baseball bats. Oh, and no head shots. All this ruling did was clarify the distinction between "spanking" and "beating"; between "discipline" and "assault".

 

Maybe you'd prefer that parents be legally permitted to pound their children into comas if they see fit, because as parents that's their God-given right and the state has no business interfering. How would you have preferred the Supreme Court rule on this issue? No limits at all so long as you don't kill the little bugger, or perhaps you'd dispense with that limit also? Perhaps some limits, but with no clear definition? Or perhaps you have clear limits in mind, but your limits would be different from those the court has set down. I think the decision is pretty reasonable. I too think parents should be able to administer a swat to the behind on occasion without fear of criminal prosecution, but I have a hard time with allowing it to progress into all-out floggings and head punches. I have a hard time with spanking infants, too, due simply to the potential for lasting physical harm - ever heard of "Shaken Baby Syndrome"? It doesn't take much to cause permanent, even lethal brain damage in infants. Call me what you will, but I think things like that should be against the law. It sounds to me from your comments that your views are perhaps similar, so I'm puzzled why you're so horrified by this ruling. Perhaps you just accepted the "spin" of your chosen source without questioning their own biases because they provided exactly the (conservative) spin you were looking for?

 

“ Settle down ?” That’s so precious. As far as all your “points” who cares? I don’t. My point had nothing to do the verdict but rather asks if this is this important work for national governments to be involved with. Please reread my post. I will admit I was mostly making a playful retort to Snoboy after his post.

 

PP

[catbirdseat]

“ Settle down ?” That’s so precious. As far as all your “points” who cares? I don’t. My point had nothing to do the verdict but rather asks if this is this important work for national governments to be involved with. Please reread my post. I will admit I was mostly making a playful retort to Snoboy after his post.

 

PP

Absolutely. It is in the interest of the national government to prevent brain damage to children. Since the government takes care of medical expenses it would rather have children grow up to be healthy tax payers than risk them becoming cripples because their parents could not tell the difference between discipline and abuse.

[murraysovereign]

My point had nothing to do the verdict but rather asks if this is this important work for national governments to be involved with.

 

OK, time for a little PoliSci 100 refresher:

 

Individuals have "rights". But so do all the other individuals around them. Sometimes, one individual's rights come into conflict with someone else's rights. In order to maintain a functional civil society, we need some way of adjudicating the conflicts that arise when one individual tries to exercise their rights at the expense of another's rights. So we invented "government" to establish the boundaries, to write laws formalizing those boundaries, and to enforce them when necessary.

 

In the present context: parents have rights; so do children. "Is this important work for national governments to be involved with"? Hell, yes, it's the one truly fundamental reason governments exist at all.

[Rodchester]

Keep in mind that we are a Republic with certain powers given to the Federal Branch and certain powers reserved by the states. Generally, laws regulating the family (divorce, marriage, adoption, child rearing, etc.) have been laws reserved by the states (10th Amendment). This means that state law controls in these areas. Generally, state law interpretation can go no higher than the state supreme court, unless of course, there is a federal issue.

 

The 14th Amendment has basically opened up many issues to federal interpretation and the line between has been blurred ever since.

 

So while it makes social sense that a federal court would be concerned with these issues, it is questionable whether they CAN (jurisdiction) legally become involved and whether they should.

 

Though I am not totally agreeing with PP, he has a strong legal point. The proper way to state it, is not whether the US Supreme Court should address the issue, but whether it is the best court to address the issue.

 

 

2 cents...ok, that's a bit more than 2 cents, but you get the picture.

 

Edited February 4, 2004 by Rodchester

[Rodchester]

Oh yeah..and let me say that I suck.

 

I simply assumed we were talking about the US SUpreme court. So shoot me. Canada's system is a bit different.

 

Never mind.

[murraysovereign]

That division you refer to actually has to do with being a Federal state, rather than a Republic. We're a federation also, and have different powers delegated to Ottawa and the provinces. In Canada, it's mainly a division between criminal law and civil law (I'm using very broad brush strokes - it's a bit more convoluted than that), although there's some overlap along the edges. Since the law in question dealt with a clause in the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court of Canada was the appropriate body to hear the appeal.

 

Peter seemed to be questioning whether this should be before any government body at all, judicial or legislative. If it had been before a provincial court, or a state court in the U.S., I think he would have had the same objection - that the government had no business being involved. It's a fair objection, too, but I think there are reasonable grounds to justify society setting some limits.