November 27, 2007

It Takes A Village To Neutralize Parental Authority

Well, I'm not especially surprised that it's Massachusetts:

Parents who spank their kids - even in their own homes - would be slapped by the long arm of the law under an Arlington nurse’s proposal to make Massachusetts the first state in the nation to outlaw corporal punishment.

Kathleen Wolf’s proposed legislation will be debated at a State House hearing tomorrow morning.

If signed into law, parents would be prohibited from forcefully laying a hand on any child under age 18 unless it was to wrest them from danger, lest they be charged with abuse or neglect.

Rep. Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat, submitted the 61-year-old Wolf’s petition at her request, but is not taking a position for or against corporal punishment.

“He does recognize and understand the concern many would have on legislating parental rights,” said Sean Fitzgerald, Kaufman’s chief of staff, “but the problem is the boundary is often overstepped. The right to hit should never be the right to hurt.”

True, but there's also a maxim to the effect that hard cases make bad laws. Preventing genuine child-abusers (i.e, the "hurters") from running amok is fine, even admirable. But letting the State interfere with Mom and Dad's judgment about how best to take Little Johnny down a peg or two when he needs it, well, that's a whole different order of bureaucratic nannyism.

Here's the proposed text:

An Act prohibiting corporal punishment of children. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1: Chapter 119 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after Section 51 B, a new Section 51 B 1/2 , as follows:

Section 51 B ½. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN IS PROHIBITED

Corporal Punishment of children violates their rights to safe, secure and respectful care.

This section is intended to actively support nonviolent parenting.

The provisions of this section are intended to eliminate the use of corporal punishment to discipline children, because of the emotional harm and risks of bodily harm associated with corporal punishment of children.

The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using incidental or minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control, or other discipline which does not constitute corporal punishment.

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following words shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings: -

“Child”, any person under eighteen years of age.

“Corporal punishment”, the willful infliction of physical pain or injurious or humiliating treatment.

(b) It shall be unlawful in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for any adult to inflict corporal punishment upon a child.

(c) The infliction of corporal punishment on a child may be a basis for a finding of abuse and neglect.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using such reasonable force as is necessary to protect himself and others from imminent, serious, physical harm, including assault by a child, to divest a child of a dangerous instrument, to prevent injury to property, or to remove a child from a life-threatening or injurious situation.

Looks awful broad to me. I'm not sure whether Rep. Kaufman really gives that much of a damn about "the concerns many would have on legislating parental rights."

Posted by Robert at November 27, 2007 04:18 PM | TrackBack
Comments

I'm of the opinion -- and have been for a long time -- that if we got together a mob and went to Boston and hanged the entire Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it would be a great day for democracy.

Call it a well deserved corporal punishment.

Posted by: The Colossus at November 27, 2007 04:41 PM

"“Corporal punishment”, the willful infliction of physical pain or injurious or humiliating treatment."

I'm no lawyer, but that there looks to me like a stonking great loophole. After all, if you prevent fifteen year old Johnny or Mary from going out with their friends because they're grounded, isn't that "humiliating treatment"? Haven't you just embarrassed them in front of their peer group and held them up to public ridicule? Haven't you maliciously blackened their good name by telling all the moms and dads that Johnny can't go to the movies with his pals or Mary can't come over for the sleepover because they are being punished for (allegedly) having conmitted an offence?

Anyone want to bet there wouldn't be a case along these lines if this wacko law came into being?

The trouble with laws like these is that the kinds of parents who would smash their kid's head against a wall or throw boiling water at them or leave them without food are not, in the middle of a freakout, going to say to themselves "Oops! I was going to punch Johnny or Mary in the face with all my strength, but luckily I remembered in time about the Anti-Spanking Law!"


Posted by: Fuinseoig at November 27, 2007 06:06 PM

With liberals gathered close to the coasts as they are, I sometimes think simultaneous magnitude 10 earthquakes in the Atlantic and Pacific sea beds - followed by 2,500 foot high walls of water - would solve all of our country's problems.

Posted by: Hucbald at November 27, 2007 08:41 PM

Heck, just driving 15 y.o. Johnny or Jane up to the school door instead of dropping them off a block away would certainly humiliate them when all their friends see what dorks their parents are.

There's a huge difference between swatting a 2 y.o. on the bum to get his attention that he's being naughty and smacking that same kid in the face.

Is the state now going to provide all the parents with parenting coaches?

Posted by: rbj at November 28, 2007 10:50 AM

Just so you know, it is illegal in Norway and has been for many years. Just saying.

Posted by: Random Penseur at November 28, 2007 11:52 AM

About 18 years ago my oldest came home from Kindergarten and announced "If you hit me I can call the Police on you."
I told him to go ahead...

The 2nd kid was impossible to get ready for school. Me: full out sweat trying to get the show on the road. Him: fiddeling with some little piece of junk and not getting ready. I was on the verge of losing my job due to being tardy. So, one day I dumped him off at school in a tee shirt and his jammie bottoms, shoved his shoes and socks in his backpack, no breakfast... His last words were "I'm going to tell on you."

That night his teacher called the house to tell me that he had indeed told on me. Her response to him was "Stop giving your mother such a hard time every morning and get yourself ready for school on time!"

God bless that woman!

Posted by: Babs at November 29, 2007 11:39 AM