^Probably the most balanced piece I've read on the issue during this current spate of coverage.

also...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/a...-and-religion/

If that was the standard, most cases of child abuse would not exist.

The democracy gets to argue about that. But as I said above, there are close cases, and this is an easy case. This is going to be over any rational line. If the child needs medical attention, that is rightly called a crime. You can't inflict physical injury on helpless dependents, be they children, disabled people, or elderly people.

Doesn't anyone else think that it's relevant that Adrian lost a child to a "disciplinary" beating? Wouldn't a loving parent re-analyze the role of physical discipline for the dead child's brother?

I don't know what "democracy" means in this context. As ASTalumna06 stated on page 1, I started this thread as a discussion of the larger topic of cultural variations.

It is only called a crime if the child needs medical attention?

Is there subjectivity in "needs medical attention"?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I didn't say only. I said that medical attention = crime. That doesn't mean that no medical attention =/= crime.

What democracy means in this context is that voters of a state get to choose the people who establish the law and supervise the agencies enforcing it. IMHO, discipline that leaves a mark on the child or that merits medical attention in the opinion of a qualified pediatrician is abuse. Discipline that does not leave a mark or merit medical attention has to be evaluated in context by competent professionals. That's a tall order for our social services agencies, but that's what they need to try to do.

No, I reserve that for fun topics.

But, it does mean that "need medical attention" is subjective. There are people who "need medical attention" who do not receive it; and there are people who do not "need medical attention" who receive it.

If only it was that simple.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...m_nothing.html

"I was hit by a teacher in an East Texas public school. It taught me nothing."

Late last night Adrian Peterson was advised to clean out his locker and ordered not to attend any Vikings events or to come near the practice field, Winter Park. The Vikings lost one of their biggest corporate sponsors the Raddison Hotels yesterday and AP has lost two of his biggest endorsers, Nike and Special Olympics although he won't be hurt too badly as the Grand Jury met after the season started so he'll still get his 15 million dollar salary for this year. This is good because in addition to losing the endorsements retailers can't sell a Peterson jersey to anyone here in the Twin Cites. Nobody want to be seen in one, much less have one secretly. It is the same issue as the Ray Rice jersey "purge" in Baltimore with the exception of retailers haven't pulled the jerseys off the shelves just yet. Call it Midwest optimism or Minnesota nice.

There is now scuttlebutt that he may be released from the Vikings because of this. Maybe AP should remember what happened to his 2 year old son last year but the hands of another man.

NPR's Here and Now:
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/09/1...-black-culture

NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/15/348765...cal-discipline

I read these editorials last night and found them interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/op...buse.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/op...ild-abuse.html
I found this one particularly interesting, since I didn't know what the context for corporal punishment in the African American community was before reading it. Having looked at the comments, some people are getting the idea that the author thinks this is mainly an African American issue, but I didn't get that idea at all because I know this is widespread among a variety of cultures.


Dr. Phil, this is from the second article you posted:
I think this is important. Many people use corporal punishment, but increasing its frequency is not effective and can have some very negative consequences on the psychological well-being of children. This is what I would expect. Overall I think that positive reinforcement is a better way to train someone than to punish them. I haven't read up on all the studies, but that's what I've observed in my life.

And if using corporal punishment as frequently as it is used is not effective and can have very negative potential consequences, then I would hope that this situation being brought to light can foster some enlightened conversations and could encourage people to make some changes on a personal and cultural level so that parents are no longer encouraged to punish their children in potentially counterproductive ways. As we become more knowledgeable, we evolve over time and shape our culture. I don't think it's necessary to hold on to things that aren't as effective as they were once thought to be, especially if they have the potential to be pretty harmful.

I agree. This is really about cultural variations in parenting, historical and contemporary parenting, and why having children should not be the default. Societies need to stop encouraging people to have children and pretending the majority of people just somehow figure it out or somehow make it work.

I just have to jump in here - a whelp is a puppy - I think the word you're looking for is "welt" (a raised mark) - sorry to be the word police :)!

This 1000x!

It's a real grey area where that line is and community standards can often dictate where that line is and create a problematic blurry line for the parents. Of course the safest thing to do for parents is not to use corporal punishment, but in many states, that is still their right.

For example, in Oklahoma, here is a uniform jury instruction given in all child abuse jury trials:

So it is a question of fact for the jury as to whether ordinary force was used and you are going to find that jurors come from a wide variety of backgrounds, many of which are not going to think there was more than ordinary force (because they got it worse from their parents).

I am actually surprised this child is not in state custody because we clearly have a case where if criminal child abuse did occur, the mother is probably a mandated reporter and she failed to protect her child on at least one other occasion.

It's crazy that if you were to "spank" or "swat" an adult, it's considered assault or battery, and if you do the same to a dog, it's considered animal cruelty. But go ahead, hit your kid, that's fine (and yes, "swat" and "spank" = hitting).

:rolleyes:

The only reason kids behave after being spanked/swatted/hit is because they don't want to get hit again. It's fear, not respect.

As for the argument - "he reached for the stove" or "he ran into the street" - watch your kid, keep him/her away from the stove by creating a place for him/her to safely play out of harms way, pay attention when you're outside so he/she doesn't into the street.