So it seems that some parts of the US get it, while others just don't get it at all. Via Daryl:
"Last month, a Durham woman used a belt to discipline her children, and she left marks on her 3-year-old. After a day-care worker reported this to authorities, the woman was charged with three counts of felony child abuse and jailed under a $90,000 bond. In contrast, a Robeson County teacher struck a child five times with a wooden plank with holes drilled in it, and the child’s buttocks were covered in bruises. This teacher is still teaching."
According to Project No Spank, there are some twenty plus states where schoolchildren may still be beaten with paddles, so you can sort of see where the spankers from TOSH are coming from.
Although we could claim legal consistency on corporal punishment here in the UK, I guess we shouldn't get too cocky, since Government failed to enact the one useful thing that could have come out of the 2004 Children's Act when it copped out of a full ban on corporal punishment. Instead we have a compromise amendment from a Lib Dem peer to the effect that battery of a child cannot be justified if it amounts to wounding and causing grievous bodily or actual bodily harm or cruelty to persons under age16.
In other words, kids here in the UK do not have rights to personhood under the law since the effect of this compromise is that common assault for correction remains legal for children.
Shame on us.
And so the questions remain: How is it possible to explain to children that non-violence is a superior way to resolve conflicts if we also maintain that it is right and/or necessary to hit children, and this in the light of evidence that many people have been raised successfully without a single tap on the knuckles?
And how, in justifying hitting children, does one justify the laws of assault that apply to adults?