You don't know anyone black, do you?

Or anyone from another culture, like Latino, Arab, Japanese?

If you did, you would see corporal punishment used universally and wisely.

My wife followed our kids around with a belt the first few years of their lives. It made me cringe, but when you're cross-cultural you have to have great elasticity of mind. As it turned out she rarely used the belt. They're turning out O.K. (as she had). I'd much rather have a parent like that, than one of these "I refuse to hit you" guilt-trippers.

but I am also against the government micromanaging parenting. The idea of outlawing spanking altogether scares me, even though I have never hit my kids. It's hard to articulate why - but maybe it's just that I don't want to feel that I'm living in a Panopticon, where my every angry moment with my children is being recorded by Big Brother. (Sorry for mixing the metaphors there.)

Who's going to enforce it? My parents beat the living crap out of me. I was a kid, what was I going to do, bring them up on charges? I'm against corporal punishment. But I'm also against clogging our law books with more useless statutes. We already have laws to address child abuse. This is just foolish grandstanding.

It'd be nice to get an actual definition of what 'spanking' means.

In the household I grew up in (and I would guess the households of many) it meant a short slap to the bum. I'll never forget the one time my Aunt (who I still, at the age of 25, have a dislike of) slapped me across the face. A slap across the face was NOT in my definition, or what my parents would ever define. I was so shocked and uncertain (probably about age 10 at the time) that it wasn't until I was 18 that I ever told my parents about it (I think it gave me an understanding, albeit a small one, of the confusion and hardship faced by children who are actually abused in coming forward.)

So, when we talk about banning 'spanking' people automatically assume you're talking about the light smacks to the bum. They don't realise you might mean a cruelly thoughtout attack on a 12 year-old, involving hitting him 36 times with a weapon. (at least thats how that reads to me). I think greater legal definition of what our society/states considers to be child abuse/violence against children vs a light 'slap'. I would think that the use of a weapon (be it a belt, paddle, whip, whatever) should be out. As should hitting in excess of once. As should hitting in excess of 7 times per week. If you need to hit your child more than once a day, you're not fit to be a parent -- I don't care how difficult your children are.

And don't think that kids don't remember and don't know fear. I still remember when my Aunt smacked me hard across the face (it didn't leave a mark), and I remember my fear and confusion. A 10 year-old isn't an adult, and doesn't know what to do about that. The state should protect them.

You know, in a lot of other cultures its acceptable to beat your wife as well (to 'keep her in line'). Thankfully the law in America has been changed to make it a crime.

Just because you come from a specific ethnic/cultural background doesn't mean its OK to beat your wife, nor should it make it OK to beat your kids.

My father was an elementary school principal. He sometimes resorted to spanking his students, and on a few occasions my brother and I. It was always more embarrassing than painful and he stopped after third grade or so opting instead to take away privileges and toys. When I was older I asked he and my mother why they stopped paddling, they replied that I "had gotten big enough that a little pain wasn't much of a punishment anymore." Even 36 non-bruising swats on a twelve year old is probably pointless whereas bruising would be abuse, however three or four swats to a kindergardener can be a well learned lesson.

Funny thing about dad, in his early years as a principal he would offer the kids a choice, either the paddle or he would call the student's parents. Since most opted for the paddle, what does that say for the effectiveness of corporal punishment?

First let me say that it sounds like the author of the post is a nice civiized person who was raised by nice people and only knows nice people. I think thats just great.

Unfortuneately both she and the first two commentators are a little disconcerting.

You say that watching blacks and latinos you will see beatings given wisely?

Have you ever been the recipient of multiple beatings with an electrical chord? Some guy featured in the Boston Globe yesterday apparently had. He was testifying in favor of the proposed law and he was middleaged and still sounded upset. He also didn't look like a cry baby. He looked like he could take any pro-spanking tough guy and fuck them up.

Have you ever sat in court and watched a ghetto grandma plead guilty to assault on an eight year-old girl while some cop sits in the audience holding a bloody cane? And then watched another grandma plead guilty to beating a boy with a belt so that the teachers saw the severe bruises the next day at school? Both pleas back to back? I have. I wonder how many similar cases don't get prosecuted because people hear the screams and assume that its just good old fashioned acceptable discipline going on behind the closed door.

I guess I just don't understand wisdom.

As far as fearing big brother seeing my every angry moment. Well, that is a good reason to decriminalize plain old assault and battery. After all, I wouldn't want "big brother" interfering if I feel the need to beat down someone who pisses me off, regardless of if they happen to be my kid. Of course, I would only expect my beatings to be priveleged if I do so calmly and with evident premeditation, not in sudden anger.

Does anyone else find it odd that premeditation and planning are only mitigating in parent/child assaults, and in all other cases sudden anger is thought to be mitigating and premeditation an aggravating factor?

This law is not going to pass. There are too many traditionalists out there. They weren't harmed so it must be ok. Well when I was a kid I didn't use a car seat or even a seatbelt after the age of about three. I'm not dead or in a wheel chair, so it must have been ok. As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone who was crippled by not using a carseat as a kid either. Should we repeal car seat requirements for kids or is it enough that there is a risk of harm, even a small one, to justify a law protecting children?

I predict about a thousand posts on this and more heat than light.

I simply believe that cutting the tacit acceptance of possible brutality toward children is, in itself, good reason to ban beating children. If that cramps your stlyle, tough shit. Learn some new methods, they work just as well and with less risk of all kinds of harms, some of which may be obvious to you and some of which may not.