[old_pigpen]

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/de/201209210.asp

It takes a village - NOT!

Speaking as an adult and parent, my parents should have spanked me more than they did!

[Angry Fist]

Same here.

[SPDSNYPR]

What a crock of horse ****. **** them. I spanked my kids, I was spanked. Nobody went to prison. I have good kids. Coincidence? I don't think so. They're trying to legislate a perfect world. **** them for that. It doesn't exist.

[razdog76]

Boy get in the car, we are going for a drive to Maryland.

[Mrs.Cicero]

Originally Posted by razdog76

Boy get in the car, we are going for a drive to Maryland.

[Napalm561]

Originally Posted by SPDSNYPR

What a crock of horse ****. **** them. I spanked my kids, I was spanked. Nobody went to prison. I have good kids. Coincidence? I don't think so. They're trying to legislate a perfect world. **** them for that. It doesn't exist.

This.

And Delaware shall reap what they sow.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by old_pigpen

It takes a village - NOT!

I've always wondered at the irony of adopting an African proverb about raising children. Apparently the irony is lost on liberals - hence Hillary Clinton's use of the proverb as a book title for "her vision for the children of America."

[rockapede]

Wow. Not that I had plans of ever relocating to Delaware, but now I have plans NOT to. I don't necessarily know that spanking is always the best punishment, but IMO it's the best way to safely show a child that certain actions can have real, physical consequences (i.e. don't touch the burner on the stove, mouthing off in the real world can result in facial swelling, etc).

[Dragoon44]

From the link to the actual law I don't see where Delaware has outlawed spanking. The section the article refers to is dealing with Physical injury including physical impairment and pain. Sounds to me like it is describing ongoing impairment or pain not merely temporary infliction of pain via spanking.

overall it looks to me like another special interest group, "the sky is falling", BS.

[ithaca_deerslayer]

What about causing mental pain?

Such witholding candy, not allowing the kid to watch Elmo, or taking away the video game?

And what if teachers assign math homework, doesn't cause pain?

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

What about causing mental pain?

Such witholding candy, not allowing the kid to watch Elmo, or taking away the video game?

And what if teachers assign math homework, doesn't cause pain?

I was thinking about the "heartbreak of psoriasis", obviously it is genetic and comes from your parents so can't they be punished for inflicting it on their children?

[janice6]

Glad I don't live there. Especially after this law is a few years old.

[razdog76]

The thing about non spanking families I see, is the tendency towards raising their children as a friend. Corporal punishment reaffirms who is control in the relationship, which is paramount to a good parent/child relationship.

On the other hand, if the parent is putting the whack to the kid out of frustration, then not the best situation either.

[SKSman57]

I like the HSLDA and believe that they do a lot of good, but I think they are overstating the case here.

While it is true that this bill defines "physical injury" to include "pain", the code section also states:

(a) "Abuse" means causing any physical injury to a child through unjustified force as defined in §468(1)(c) of this title, torture, negligent treatment, sexual abuse, exploitation, maltreatment, mistreatment or any means other than accident...


Later, the code section reads:

(1) The person recklessly or intentionally causes physical injury to a child through an act of abuse and/or neglect of such child; or

Thus, the elements under 1103 (a)(1) are:

Recklessly or Intentionally
Cause Physical Injury
To a Child
Through Abuse or Neglect

Reasonable corporal punishment is explicitly excluded from the definition of abuse by operation of 468(1)(c).

----------

468(1)

The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable if it is reasonable and moderate and:

(1) The defendant is the parent, guardian, foster parent, legal custodian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a child, or a person acting at the request of a parent, guardian, foster parent, legal custodian or other responsible person, and:

a. The force is used for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child, including the prevention or punishment of misconduct; and

b. The force used is intended to benefit the child, or for the special purposes listed in paragraphs (2)a., (3)a., (4)a., (5), (6) and (7) of this section. The size, age, condition of the child, location of the force and the strength and duration of the force shall be factors considered in determining whether the force used is reasonable and moderate; but

c. The force shall not be justified if it includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: Throwing the child, kicking, burning, cutting, striking with a closed fist, interfering with breathing, use of or threatened use of a deadly weapon, prolonged deprivation of sustenance or medication, or doing any other act that is likely to cause or does cause physical injury, disfigurement, mental distress, unnecessary degradation or substantial risk of serious physical injury or death; or

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

From the link to the actual law I don't see where Delaware has outlawed spanking. The section the article refers to is dealing with Physical injury including physical impairment and pain. Sounds to me like it is describing ongoing impairment or pain not merely temporary infliction of pain via spanking.

overall it looks to me like another special interest group, "the sky is falling", BS.

Digging into this a little deeper, it appears that your take was correct:

http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/vwLegislation/SB+234/$file/legis.html?open

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/decode/11/4/468

Basically, yeah, causing pain in and of itself is now part of the definition of physical injury, but use of reasonable force by a parent or guardian is still justifiable if it's "used for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child, including the prevention or punishment of misconduct."

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by SKSman57

I like the HSLDA and believe that they do a lot of good, but I think they are overstating the case here.

While it is true that this bill defines "physical injury" to include "pain", the code section also states:

(a) "Abuse" means causing any physical injury to a child through unjustified force as defined in §468(1)(c) of this title, torture, negligent treatment, sexual abuse, exploitation, maltreatment, mistreatment or any means other than accident...


Later, the code section reads:

(1) The person recklessly or intentionally causes physical injury to a child through an act of abuse and/or neglect of such child; or

Thus, the elements under 1103 (a)(1) are:

Recklessly or Intentionally
Cause Physical Injury
To a Child
Through Abuse or Neglect

Reasonable corporal punishment is explicitly excluded from the definition of abuse by operation of 468(1)(c).

----------

The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable if it is reasonable and moderate and:

(1) The defendant is the parent, guardian, foster parent, legal custodian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a child, or a person acting at the request of a parent, guardian, foster parent, legal custodian or other responsible person, and:

a. The force is used for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child, including the prevention or punishment of misconduct; and

b. The force used is intended to benefit the child, or for the special purposes listed in paragraphs (2)a., (3)a., (4)a., (5), (6) and (7) of this section. The size, age, condition of the child, location of the force and the strength and duration of the force shall be factors considered in determining whether the force used is reasonable and moderate; but

c. The force shall not be justified if it includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: Throwing the child, kicking, burning, cutting, striking with a closed fist, interfering with breathing, use of or threatened use of a deadly weapon, prolonged deprivation of sustenance or medication, or doing any other act that is likely to cause or does cause physical injury, disfigurement, mental distress, unnecessary degradation or substantial risk of serious physical injury or death; or

Beat me to it

[SKSman57]

Beat me to it

Well, your explanation was much easier to read and got right to the point.

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Way too much nanny in those laws, and tgey will be interpreted many different ways, and good people will get arrested, jailed, and hassled over them. Kids will get taken away from good parents. And busy bodies will be all up in good parents' face over the slightest misperceptions.

I say all of that, even with the attempted clarifications of that law.

[blueiron]

Wait until the law on unintended consequences catches up to this law. It will effectively eliminate spanking.

No law ever stays within its intended target.

[Davegrave]

http://eddiepatin.com/pblog/index.ph...y090517-083433

A long read...but worth it.