Judge beats daughter with belt NSFW.

[De Selby]

I would simply say that physical discipline and violence are not the same thing.  My Dad spanked me plenty of times though not as a teenager.  It was never done in anger and it was always made abundantly clear what I did wrong and why it was wrong.  I didn't watch the whole video and I don't know if I would approve of the way this guy did it.  However, I would not equate it to assault and battery.

Okay, but if it weren't for a specific defence at law, battery is exactly what it would be - if you take a belt to your wife, there's the crime of battery.  No doubt about it. How does it make sense for it not to be a crime when it's your teenage daughter?

Rev, responsibility to raise the child isn't terribly different from the responsibility a husband has towards a wife (at law, that is an important qualifier.). You can have a similar relationship to a disabled adult, but I don't think anyone here would want to legalize whipping the mentally handicapped to manage their behaviour.

[CNYCacher]

I think with all the philosophical ranting going on, a lot of people are forgetting that a "beating" with the loop end of a doubled over belt is below "pool noodle" on the damage scale.  It's a lot of noise, because of the two flat leather surfaces slapping together, but it's slow in the air and the cross-sectional density is nil.

Honestly, most of you own a belt.  Fold it in half, grasp the buckle end and swat yourself in the leg with it.  It's not like he was hitting her with a stick.

Okay, but if it weren't for a specific defence at law, battery is exactly what it would be - if you take a belt to your wife, there's the crime of battery.  No doubt about it. How does it make sense for it not to be a crime when it's your teenage daughter?

Rev, responsibility to raise the child isn't terribly different from the responsibility a husband has towards a wife (at law, that is an important qualifier.). You can have a similar relationship to a disabled adult, but I don't think anyone here would want to legalize whipping the mentally handicapped to manage their behaviour.

I think your obsession with drawing useless and not altogether relevant analogies weakens your argument.

[De Selby]

CNY, analogies that make it hard to argue your point aren't useless - the relevance here is that, as you describe in your post, it would be no defence to a crime to say "eh, I didn't hit my wife/stranger/sister that hard, I used a looped belt."  

Yet that becomes a defence for belting your 16 year old disabled daughter.  Now, it's illegal for adults to do it to each other for good reasons.  Why aren't those reasons just as good when applied to a 16 year old?

Rev made the point that there's a relationship of trust and guidance, giving the parent responsibilities.  That's also true with carers of mentally disabled adults (for example, an adult with the mental age of a child).  But it's still a crime if you whip those people with a belt for doing naughty things, like playing with the computer against your instructions, even if you use a looped belt or less damaging instrument.

So which is it?  Are the reasons why it's illegal to lightly belt a wife or disabled adult not very good, or is there something magical about the person being your daughter that makes those reasons suddenly become irrelevant?

[RevDisk]

I would simply say that physical discipline and violence are not the same thing.  My Dad spanked me plenty of times though not as a teenager.  It was never done in anger and it was always made abundantly clear what I did wrong and why it was wrong.  In hindsight, it was never excessive either.  I didn't watch the whole video and I don't know if I would approve of the way this guy did it.  However, I would not equate it to assault and battery.

You got lucky.  Plenty of folks don't, and get beaten pretty decent.  Sure your dad used less violence, and that's a good thing.  The difference primarily wasn't the physical force, it was the person behind it and their intention.

Okay, but if it weren't for a specific defence at law, battery is exactly what it would be - if you take a belt to your wife, there's the crime of battery.  No doubt about it. How does it make sense for it not to be a crime when it's your teenage daughter?

Rev, responsibility to raise the child isn't terribly different from the responsibility a husband has towards a wife (at law, that is an important qualifier.). You can have a similar relationship to a disabled adult, but I don't think anyone here would want to legalize whipping the mentally handicapped to manage their behaviour.

Sigh.

De Selby, have you even been in a relationship?  Unless the chick is really whacked in the head, even by MY standards, if you EVER make the insinuation that your wife is basically the same as a child, you had best sleep in a locked room for a YEAR.  While buying flowers, making sincere begging on your friggin knees and offering anything up to and including blood sacrifices to make amends.  On a daily basis.  Ye fluffy gods.  ANY of the ladies I've dated would gut me like a trout for making such a statement.  And I would deserve it for saying something so stupid and demeaning.  I literally cringed when I read that statement.

If that statement IS ever applicable, RUN.  Run fast, and run hard!   Mind you, this is coming from me.  If you are not understanding the depths of what I am trying to tell you, I will pray that your end at the hands of an angry lady is quick, only mildly agonizing pain and involves only a couple liters of aspirated blood.

[GigaBuist]

I think with all the philosophical ranting going on, a lot of people are forgetting that a "beating" with the loop end of a doubled over belt is below "pool noodle" on the damage scale.  It's a lot of noise, because of the two flat leather surfaces slapping together, but it's slow in the air and the cross-sectional density is nil.

Huh.  I didn't notice that in the video.  Granted, didn't watch much of it.  But you're right.  If that how he was hitting her there's really more noise than pain going on.  Still, I question the utility of whipping a teenager.

But that did remind me of a story related to all of this.

My mom (who was beat as a kid) was talking about disciple techniques with my wife.  Our toddler is nearing 2 years old.  Anyway, she mentions having a conversation about this with my father when my brothers and I were young and the two of them were laying in bed one morning while us rugrats bounced around in our own bedroom.  Mom said something to dad like of course the kids listen to you.  They're SCARED of you.  Dad said we weren't scared of him.  He was just our dad.  So mom tells him she used to be terrified when her dad would get home, pull his belt off, and snap it together.  Makes a loud noise.  You knew somebody was going to get beat.  Granted, probably with the buckle itself hitting anywhere it landed, but that noise made her cringe.

So dad went into our bedroom and started making that noise with his belt.  We all laughed, even stuck our hands in the middle of it when he said it wouldn't hurt, and it doesn't.

[De Selby]

Rev, your humour is off the mark - the point is that it's obviously illegal (and for good reasons, one of which you cite!) to treat a grown woman this way.  My question is: why are all of those reasons suddenly irrelevant when you deal with a teenage daughter?  Treating a teenager like a toddler (i.e., by spanking) can have you in just as much of a bind, as this judge found out. 

FYI - your JAG officer ought to be disbarred for giving advice like that.  Proper legal advice would have been more along the lines of "never mention that you assaulted someone with a deadly weapon again, and pray he has no injuries that prove it" if he wanted to help you.  Bad lawyering that costs people money is one thing; bad lawyering that baits people into believing serious crimes would fly just fine is a whole new level of incompetence.

[RevDisk]

Rev, your humour is off the mark - the point is that it's obviously illegal (and for good reasons, one of which you cite!) to treat a grown woman this way.  My question is: why are all of those reasons suddenly irrelevant when you deal with a teenage daughter?  Treating a teenager like a toddler (i.e., by spanking) can have you in just as much of a bind, as this judge found out. 

FYI - your JAG officer ought to be disbarred for giving advice like that.  Proper legal advice would have been more along the lines of "never mention that you assaulted someone with a deadly weapon again, and pray he has no injuries that prove it" if he wanted to help you.  Bad lawyering that costs people money is one thing; bad lawyering that baits people into believing serious crimes would fly just fine is a whole new level of incompetence.

I'm not endorsing the guy's behavior.  Honestly, at that age, you've either already done your job or you failed. 

Re the second part, basically, that is what he said.  But uh, UCMJ is not like civilian law.  True, the modern military court rarely follows the allowed maximum punishment.  Rape is (and should also be in civil law) a capital offense under the UCMJ, for instance.  I don't recall the last rapist who got the firing squad, which is a darn shame.  But, no, it was not a crime, let alone a serious crime.  Again, military law is not remotely like civil law.  Too many people, in and out of the military, have forgotten this.

[CNYCacher]

Still, I question the utility of whipping a teenager.

Word

[MicroBalrog]

I think with all the philosophical ranting going on, a lot of people are forgetting that a "beating" with the loop end of a doubled over belt is below "pool noodle" on the damage scale.  It's a lot of noise, because of the two flat leather surfaces slapping together, but it's slow in the air and the cross-sectional density is nil.

I don't think anybody is arguing the woman was injured in any way.

[Perd Hapley]

Treating a teenager like a toddler (i.e., by spanking) can have you in just as much of a bind, as this judge found out. 

So are you OK with spanking of young children, but for teenagers, you think it should be illegal?

Comparing wives with children just muddies the waters here. The questions I asked earlier were meant to demonstrate that. The "could you do it to your wife?" test is not a good one, as there are so very many things a husband can (and often should) do to his children that he can't legally do to his wife.

[De Selby]

So are you OK with spanking of young children, but for teenagers, you think it should be illegal?

Comparing wives with children just muddies the waters here. The questions I asked earlier were meant to demonstrate that. The "could you do it to your wife?" test is not a good one, as there are so very many things a husband can (and often should) do to his children that he can't legally do to his wife.

And this is exactly what I'm disputing - the very same legal tradition of being entitled to use physical violence (normally prohibited) against children is the one that authorised it against wives and servants.  It relies on the same reasoning - that correction by force is necessary for proper behaviour.  I can't see why it would persist for a 16 year old when it hasn't for any other group that used to be subject to a corrective spanking.

I've restricted the discussion to teenagers because that's the case at hand, and a teenager (didn't really exist until a little under 100 years ago, btw, they used to just be adults) is obviously different in mental capacity from a younger child.

[MicroBalrog]

I've restricted the discussion to teenagers because that's the case at hand, and a teenager (didn't really exist until a little under 100 years ago, btw, they used to just be adults) is obviously different in mental capacity from a younger child.

Had a teenager committed a serious crime, the very same people who propose treating them as children would let out a hue and cry that they must be tried as adults.

[wmenorr67]

Had a teenager committed a serious crime, the very same people who propose treating them as children would let out a hue and cry that they must be tried as adults.

After the age of 14 you should be able to comprehend the difference between right and wrong.  Punishment should start fitting the crime.  Youthful offenders as they are called in Oklahoma shouldn't get an automatic walk at the age of 18 or 21.  Do the crime of a man serve the time of a man.

[De Selby]

After the age of 14 you should be able to comprehend the difference between right and wrong.  Punishment should start fitting the crime.  Youthful offenders as they are called in Oklahoma shouldn't get an automatic walk at the age of 18 or 21.  Do the crime of a man serve the time of a man.

Right - just don't disobey dad or you can be spanked like any other child.  It's only when you commit crimes that you have the rights (and responsibilities) of an adult.  Or so the reasoning of some who believe this judge's conduct is okay would go...

[wmenorr67]

I have never said that what this judge did is ok.  And actually it isn't.  Mom is guilty also.  There is no need to beat a child like that.  At any age but at that age it isn't going to do anything.

There are other ways to get a childs attention after about the age of 12 or 13.

[Lee]

Obviously it was far more satisfying for Poppa to beat his kid with a belt than take away her computer.  I was raised with the belt as well. The only lesson it taught me was to fear my father...not love, respect or trust him. 

[Tallpine]

All I can say is that there were many times when I was growing up that I wished that my mom would have beat me with a belt, instead of some of the things that she said to me when I misbehaved.

A beating would have probably have  resulted in fewer long term bad effects, too.