The subjectivity of defining "child abuse"

[AOII Angel]

There is evidence that any violent discipline is detrimental to child development. Reasonable people will disagree about whether it is appropriate to swat a child. I think you will be hard pressed to find a majority that agree with spanking to the point of whelps and bruises.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by jefro3

When the kid has to go to the hospital, it is child abuse.

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

[Low D Flat]

Based on whose standard?

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

The democracy gets to argue about that.

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.

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

If the child needs medical attention, that is rightly called a crime.

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

Is there subjectivity in "needs medical attention"?

[Low D Flat]

It is only called a crime if the child 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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

No, I reserve that for fun topics.

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

I didn't say only. I said that medical attention = crime. That doesn't mean that no medical attention =/= crime.

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.

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

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.

If only it was that simple.

[ree-Xi]

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).



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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

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).

That's your culture. Your background gives you very specific values and beliefs about child rearing. Those values and beliefs are not universally shared. Some people think that if you don't use corporal punishment, you are a poor parent and different cultures have widely different ideas about the proper way to raise a child.

Because Dr. Spock published his book and you agree with him doesn't make your culture and background more relevant or correct than others.

I try to have an open mind when working child abuse cases. I'm not sure any of us want to live in a country where the government comes into everyone's home and threatens potential criminal action for anyone who doesn't follow the government's plan for child rearing.

We shouldn't be in the business of punishing parents unless it is readily apparent that the parent's intent in hitting the child was to be cruel, to torture, etc.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That's your culture. Your background gives you very specific values and beliefs about child rearing. Those values and beliefs are not universally shared. Some people think that if you don't use corporal punishment, you are a poor parent and different cultures have widely different ideas about the proper way to raise a child.

Because Dr. Spock published his book and you agree with him doesn't make your culture and background more relevant or correct than others.

I try to have an open mind when working child abuse cases. I'm not sure any of us want to live in a country where the government comes into everyone's home and threatens potential criminal action for anyone who doesn't follow the government's plan for child rearing.

We shouldn't be in the business of punishing parents unless it is readily apparent that the parent's intent in hitting the child was to be cruel, to torture, etc.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

How do you think that informs future interactions, when that child is an adult?

Not making a judgement, just thinking out loud. This might be off-topic but a couple of years ago I had a coworker who was upset with me because he felt I didn't "respect [him] enough." It seems that, even though he wasn't of the African diaspora, that he had the same thinking that younger people just automatically have to respect their elders whether or not they actually earned it.

For some Black people: Choosing aggression, arguments, and violence as a first resort; inability to have even small interactions without it turning into an argument and potentially leading to violence; and an inability to control anger.

For some Black people: Being quiet, reserved, and almost subservient from fear of punishment or any reminders of her/his upbringing.

For some Black people: Becoming opposed to any type of disagreements, anger, tension, raised voices, loud talk, etc. because it reminds the person of her/his upbringing.

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That's your culture. Your background gives you very specific values and beliefs about child rearing. Those values and beliefs are not universally shared. Some people think that if you don't use corporal punishment, you are a poor parent and different cultures have widely different ideas about the proper way to raise a child.

Because Dr. Spock published his book and you agree with him doesn't make your culture and background more relevant or correct than others.

I try to have an open mind when working child abuse cases. I'm not sure any of us want to live in a country where the government comes into everyone's home and threatens potential criminal action for anyone who doesn't follow the government's plan for child rearing.

We shouldn't be in the business of punishing parents unless it is readily apparent that the parent's intent in hitting the child was to be cruel, to torture, etc.

It certainly was not the culture in which I was raised, which is perhaps why I am so against hitting a child - I remember those punishments vividly.

Again I ask, why is it against the law for me to hit you or an animal, yet okay to hit a defenseless child 1/4 or even half my size as long as my intent wasn't to be "cruel". How is hitting a 3-year old not cruel?

[DrPhil]

It is not against the law to hit an animal. Animal cruelty does not include people who use a rolled up magazine to discipline or train a puppy. There are all types of animal training, breeding, and raising (for food, etc.) techniques that would not be considered animal cruelty.

Sarah McLachlan isn't singing about a puppy who took a dump on the couch and was smacked on the rear in punishment.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

It certainly was not the culture in which I was raised, which is perhaps why I am so against hitting a child - I remember those punishments vividly.

Good for you and your culture. The United States is a big place with lots of different cultures who all have different ideas on how children should be raised. Even if yours is objectively better than the others, where do you get off telling others what is acceptable?

It's okay to have some community standards and it's okay for the state to protect children from actual abuse, but from corporal punishment? Even corporal punishment which you might subjectively consider cruel? To a degree, yes, because in many cultures, that's how children are raised.

Child Welfare workers are trained a lot in cultural competencies, so they may choose to leave a child from a certain culture with marks from a switch in the home and conclude there's nothing wrong, because it is probable that the child is loved and cared for and has a parent or parents who want to raise them to understand that actions have consequences and to respect authority.

I've read up on the study trying to correlate grey matter/brain structure with corporal punishment, but it fails to explain the causation aspect of the relationship, so it's speculation. And even then, different =/= better.

Again I ask, why is it against the law for me to hit you or an animal, yet okay to hit a defenseless child 1/4 or even half my size as long as my intent wasn't to be "cruel". How is hitting a 3-year old not cruel?

Have you ever ridden a horse? You pull on a strap which yanks on its mouth to make it turn, pull its head back to make it stop.. and to go, you kick that sucker in the ribs... if you're wearing spurs which can make it more painful, I hear that works better... or whip him with the leather straps attached to his face.

I really don't get some animal cruelty laws and especially don't like how they're sometimes applied. And all the stuff Dr. Phil said too.

[ElieM]

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."

[flic514]

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.

[DrPhil]

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