Letters to the Editor
-
Puzzled
I'd answer your question, Niall, but I've never heard of a case where a spouse was successfully prosecuted for a single slap unless he or she killed their spouse. Usually, those individuals who are successfully prosecuted have demonstrated long and pervasive physical and/or emotional abuse over a long period of time. So, you're quite right that there isn't any time off for good behavior or the "I didn't mean it" defense if it can be proven that the abuse is long-standing. That's why your question doesn't make much sense to me. Find me a case where a spouse was imprisoned or fined for a single, solitary slap, and I will entertain your premise that Anne Lamott should be held to the same standard, re child abuse.
-
niall
you have to discipline your children... that's your responsibility as a parent. Anne made a mistake in discipline.
it is not a spouse's job to discipline another adult. It is not your responsibility
children are not adults.
Wives don't need their husbands to teach them how to be good wives. That is not the husband's job. Kids need parents to teach them how to be good kids and later adults. That is a parent's job.
-
To My Respondents
Sane Person: There is a big difference between discipline and punishment, one that you don’t seem to grasp. LaMont did not “discipline” her son, she brutalized him. Nor does LaMott make any real pretence that her slap was justifiable as “discpline”. She writes: “And I lost my mind. I slapped him across the face, for the first time in our lives. He didn't flinch and, in fact, barely seemed to register it. He gave me a flat, lifeless look, and I knew I was a truly doomed human being.” The problem with violence is that it tends to be intrinsically tied to emotional outbursts, which makes it fail at teaching the recipients of violence anything about discipline. Though it teaches them a lot about violence. Physical abuse certainly does not teach a boy anything about how to be a good son, though you seem to think otherwise.
AsianChick: I’m afraid you’re being willfully disingenuous. The policies of most police departments in the US regarding domestic violence is “mandatory arrest”, even for misdemeanor domestic violence. The policies of most prosecutors offices is “mandatory prosecution”. This means by definition that all police need is credible evidence of violence, whatever the motivation or excuse, and they must arrest, regardless of whether the victim presses charges or not. This is the reality of our society right now, and I’m surprised you are pretending to be unaware of this. Whether people go to jail for a single slap is another matter. They will however get arrested and prosecuted, if that “single slap” comes to the attention of the authorities.
So my question remains unanswered: Why should we allow violence against children, when we have already learned that violence against spouses – which has always been justified by the same rationale – is intrinsically wrong.
-
Of course it's about the money, "sane person."
It doesn't matter how much Salon actually paid AL for this one article. By publishing in a national forum she's hoping to maintain or increase the public's awareness of her as a name, to drive more book sales, to get more speaking engagements, which lead to more book sales, and more articles in national fora...it's a network effect.
-
niall
you are also allowed to punish your child. You are not allowed to punish your wife.
And I don't know the law, but I would imagine that any family court (not the kangaroo court we have here) would not consider the slap that Anne gave her son "child abuse." Some forms of physical discipline/punishment are permissible by the law.
You should send a social worker over to Anne's house right now if you really felt the kid was brutalized.
But I don't think that would go anywhere, or serve anyone other than yourself.
-
Jesus Christ
It looks like AsianChick, christianjb, and dustyrhoades are filling in while LeCastor is away.
W O W
-
Whew
So, we're all agreed about the Lamott piece then?
-
I rest my case
Niall,
I encourage you to legislate to change the laws of this country to make all forms of physical punishment given by parents to their children prosecutable, if that's your position.
You can remove children from the brutalized households where parents make mistakes.
Goodbye.
-
Still Puzzled.
Your explanation of "mandatory arrest" depends on the state and the situation. You have described most likely a worst case scenario, which technically, does not correspond to Lamott's situation. In a minor domestic disturbance, the police certainly have more discretion than you suggest, but I'll play along with your scenario. If it is truly mandatory arrest in your state (It's definitely NOT true in my state despite policy), it's usually of both parties unless one party is so injured that it's obvious who got the better of whom (Your definition of credible evidence weighs in here.) However, in most minor disturbances where it's a he said/she said situation with little physical evidence, the cop does not want to be placed in a position of deciding who is the most injured party etc, and will either arrest both spouses or suggest someone leave the premises. Can you imagine if things truly were run the way you suggest? Any woman or man, for that matter, could call the police and make ANY accusation and get their spouse arrested for absolutely no reason. That's why the law does give the police more discretion than you suggest. ;-)
I'd still like to see that actual case where someone has been arrested and prosecuted for a single, non-injurious slap. If every minor domestic tussle ended in court, there wouldn't be time to deal with any other case. For someone who likes to ask questions, you certainly don't like to answer any. You have to prove that your comparison of Lamott's slap is equivalent to a single slap, ahistoric, domestic disturbance case, which you claim is prosecutable without providing any evidence to support your argument. Not only have you not proven the equivalence, you have wasted your time, describing what would happen in a serious domestic case while conveniently ignoring the premise you yourself have set up as the question of the hour. If you cannot back your argument with hard evidence, that's fine, but don't expect the rest of us to simply accept your thesis as fact. If you cannot provide a tighter explanation of how a single, ahistoric slap by Lamott is considered equivalent to long-term spousal and child abuse, your question remains unanswerable. In the real world, you have to define your argumentation better than this. :-) After all, not everyone is going to accept your argument as valid simply because you want it that way.