Spanking

[Niamh]

Hi I have a few questions about spanking. I am a parent struggling to discipline my children. I discipline in love not anger.

Here are my questions.

1. Should a hand or object be used? What object do you use to administer a spanking?

2. Should it be done over clothing or bare bottom? Some say it's more effective bare bottom.

3. How many swats should be given? When do you stop the spanking?

4. What do you do if they try and kick and get away during a spanking?


Hope some good chrisitan parents can help

Thanks

Kim

It shouldn't be done at all. However if you insist on doing it;
1. Hand
2.Over clothing
3. One
4. Stop and explain why you are doing it to them.

EDIT: I was only slapped once on the hand as a child and I have turned out perfectly fine. I am grateful that my parents only did it that one time. If they had done it more, I would have lost respect for them.

 

[allieisme]

While I personally see the logic in what your mother did I'm curious what lesson it taught you. Sure, biting one of your children for biting another of your children may dissuade them from biting again but what exactly are you trying to teach them? Was your mom teaching you that biting your sister is unacceptable behavior or was she just merely teaching you that it hurts? What would happen if you told her that you knew it hurt and that was why you were biting her? Did your mom think you didn't know biting hurt so she decided to show you?

God bless

I was quite young.. I cannot answer for my mother, but it taught me a lesson both ways.. That biting hurt somebody and that it wasnt nice..

 

[tekwerx]

Myself personally, I was spanked quite often when I was younger. Although, thinking about it, not nearly as much as my brother was. We got bad grades? Whack. Talked back? Whack. It was always to the bottom with clothes on. When we lied we got soap in the mouth for a couple minutes and then when the soap was removed it was scraped (not hard) over our teeth to make sure the taste would remain for a little while yet. The lesson of all this was well learned; yet why the continual number of spankings you ask. ADD. Not the ADHD, just old' fashioned ADD. We were both extremely strong willed and disobedient. When told to do something, wether to help or avoide something hurting us, we ignored our parents. I cant speak for my bro, but for me most of the time commands went in one ear and out the other (sometimes, I still have this problem now with my wife...STILL learning...hehe).

In hindsight, my parents did the best they could with the knowledge they had. The reason they spanked so often was because nothing (understand NO-THING at ALL) else worked. Time outs only made me stew on how much I hated my parents. It really did. The anger just kept growing until it became hatred, and I would LONG for the spankings. I dont remember how it happened, but I remember telling my parents one time not to make me sit in time out because it just made me hate them more. They saw I was telling the truth (I guess) and sat me down and talked about it and I told them how much it was making me hate them. Time outs stopped. Sure, there were a whole myriad of other punishments that our therapist suggested, and not one worked and we usually figured out how to manipulate in our favor. Eventually we stopped going to the therapist. Figure out why.

So now, looking back on it all, yeah, it really stank getting spanked all the time, but I understand now there was no other way. Groundings, taking items or priveledges way, all that. Not one thing worked. The spanking did. And understanding that takes the pain away and makes me realize my parents did, in fact, love us, because if they had given up, or kept us in time outs, or whatever else, I wouldnt have turned out as I am today. Sure, I still have my problems, but I am, unfortunately, only human.

Will I spank my children? Yep. I do now. I give them one warning and one warning only. They know the consequences. Do I spank for everything like my parents did? No, my children are different from me; they are much better behaved than I was. Usually only a warning is needed. Small offenses such as my oldest daughters throwing a tantrum doesnt get a spanking, just a warning, a lecture, and then sent to bed for a few minutes works very well. She comes out after a few minutes, apologizes, and we hug, tell each other that we love one another then we go on. For hitting, running in the street, throwing things, disobeying either parent, mouthing off, etc. Yes, those get spankings.

To me in my opinion, not spanking is a New Age way of thinking. (Please notice the afore written sentence and register the words IN MY OPINION.) My wife and I have many friends, and they have families, and we have seen the differences between the spanked and the unspanked. The children who are spanked have grown up respectful and mindful and obedient. Not only to their parents, but to ALL others, even those the same or of younger age to themselves. The ones who have not been spanked have grown up willful, rude, disobedient, and have no fear whatsoever of any authority or of any consequences. I asked the now early teenage son of one why he acted the way he does and his answer was "Because I can. I can do anything I want and the only "trouble" I'll get into is a stupid lecture from my mom. As if that really bothers me. Its just boring, and she actually thinks I listen to her." Ive taken out the foul language and name calling of the parents. He has no respect not only for his parents, but anyone.

Take this how you will, its just my experience in my small portion of the world. From what Ive seen, the evidence is irrefutable.

Ill continue to spank.

 

[Reformationist]

I was quite young.. I cannot answer for my mother, but it taught me a lesson both ways.. That biting hurt somebody and that it wasnt nice..

Just out of curiosity, if you were in a store and your child bit another child, assuming that your child knew that biting was wrong, do you believe it would be more socially acceptable to pick them up and spank them or bite them to show them the inappropriateness of such an action?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Hatsumi]

Just out of curiosity, if you were in a store and your child bit another child, assuming that your child knew that biting was wrong, do you believe it would be more socially acceptable to pick them up and spank them or bite them to show them the inappropriateness of such an action?

I think the spanking would be more socially acceptable only because so many Americans think it's okay to do it. Then there are those who find both abominable.

In reality, there is little difference between using a bite or a swat to get one's point across (assuming you aren't out to draw blood with the bite). Both hurt.

 

[allieisme]

Just out of curiosity, if you were in a store and your child bit another child, assuming that your child knew that biting was wrong, do you believe it would be more socially acceptable to pick them up and spank them or bite them to show them the inappropriateness of such an action?

Thanks,
God bless

Hmm well hypothetically speaking... I probably would take which ever daughter of mine into the bathroom and spank them. I dont necessarily agree with publically spanking. I would also not pick up one of my kids and bite them in the store. From the origional statement I made, I think you've blown entirely up. My mom bit me one time to teach me a lesson, and it so happened to be at home.

 

[Reformationist]

From the origional statement I made, I think you've blown entirely up.

Whoa there Team Patience. I wasn't attacking you. You needn't be defensive. I was just curious on your opinion.

My mom bit me one time to teach me a lesson, and it so happened to be at home.

And what was the lesson she taught you, that biting is wrong because it hurts?

God bless

 

[oldrooster]

If you love your kids, you will spank them when they need it..they don't grow up to be idiots that way.....

 

[mcb1998au]

I dont smack my child and i dont consider him to be an idiot. The opposite actually, he is what they class as "gifted".

 

[Lena75]

Yep, had my share of spankings at home! Usually once a week or so. Seemed to be a routine. I guess to "keep us in line". My hubby and I have 3 of our own. Do we spank? Well, when time-outs, talking to's and taking away favourite things don't work, yes. After reading about the biting situation, one of our kids bit the other in the store and my hubby automatically smacked the mouth with his hand! It was a natural reflex, but boy did we get "the look"! You know, every parent is unique as is every child. Everyone has an opinion to everything.


My question. Is it OK to spank someone else's child? My sister had been babysitting my kids. When came time to pick up, she explained that she "had to" spank my daughter! Short story: daughter wanted dessert before lunch. Didn't get it and smacked my sister on her butt! Sister has a terrible temper. She hunted her down after daughter had gone into seperate room and spanked her. I've been hit by my sister several times as kids and know she has a heavy hand. Hubby and I were not impressed that she did that. While our kids were babies we did agree, that yes we'd smack each others kids, if needed. Well, I want to break that. She's our daughter and should not remember her aunt by the spankings she's received!

 

[Bible Addict]

2. In Canada, baring the child is criminal, and possibly sexual, assault.

Actually, that changed this spring when the Supreme Court ruled that corporal punishment was legal for children between the ages os 2 and 12 and with the use only of "reasonable force".

 

[pmcleanj]

Actually, that changed this spring when the Supreme Court ruled that corporal punishment was legal for children between the ages os 2 and 12 and with the use only of "reasonable force".

Read the actual decision. Here's the link: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2004/vol1/html/2004scr1_0076.html

Technically, the Supreme court did not rule that corporal punishment was legal, since that was not the question on which it was asked to rule. It ruled that due to special circumstances and within strict limits, Section 43 of the Criminal code which provides parents and teachers from prosecution for criminal assault, does not violate a child's rights under the charter of rights and freedoms.

The justices' argument does not directly address baring. The limited conditions under which Section 43 is found to be applicable, however, don't include baring. The press coverage of the decision did a fairly poor job of addressing the technical detail of the decision. You'll probably want to read it with some care.

 

[Bible Addict]

Read the actual decision. Here's the link: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2004/vol1/html/2004scr1_0076.html

Technically, the Supreme court did not rule that corporal punishment was legal, since that was not the question on which it was asked to rule. It ruled that due to special circumstances and within strict limits, Section 43 of the Criminal code which provides parents and teachers from prosecution for criminal assault, does not violate a child's rights under the charter of rights and freedoms.

The justices' argument does not directly address baring. The limited conditions under which Section 43 is found to be applicable, however, don't include baring. The press coverage of the decision did a fairly poor job of addressing the technical detail of the decision. You'll probably want to read it with some care.

Technically you're right, but even though the justices managed to avoid rendering a decision on a sticky topic, it as good as legalizes it... in most cases anyway, not in all, because until the federal government or provincial goverments pass new laws that do explicitly ban it, it's very unlikely that a parent would be charged for this unless they caused severe harm to the child or the child was outside of the age bracket the justices specified because tiw ould be a very easy case to appeal on conviction.

 

[Reformationist]

My question. Is it OK to spank someone else's child?

It is only okay if you have been given the authority to do so by that child's parents.

My sister had been babysitting my kids. When came time to pick up, she explained that she "had to" spank my daughter! Short story: daughter wanted dessert before lunch. Didn't get it and smacked my sister on her butt! Sister has a terrible temper. She hunted her down after daughter had gone into seperate room and spanked her.

If your child hit an adult it sounds like she was in serious need of a spanking. If you didn't give your sister permission to spank your children she should not have done it though. She should have left that responsibility to you.

I've been hit by my sister several times as kids and know she has a heavy hand. Hubby and I were not impressed that she did that. While our kids were babies we did agree, that yes we'd smack each others kids, if needed. Well, I want to break that. She's our daughter and should not remember her aunt by the spankings she's received!

It sounds like you're being a bit dramatic about the spanking. Is the spanking the only thing her aunt did with her? If not I doubt that's how she'll remember her aunt.

As far as you you not wanting her to spank your children, just tell her you no longer want her to spank your children. They're your children. If you feel that you're the only one who should administer that type of discipline then that's your perrogative.

One piece of advice, if you do tell her to stop spanking your child, be prepared to tell her why. For that matter, was the spanking too heavy handed? Don't you think you're daughter deserved a spanking for hitting an adult because she didn't get her way? The main thing is, you should have a reason that you and your husband agree on before telling your sister that you're pulling her spanking authority.

I know if I am babysitting someone's child (I only occasionally babysit the children of very close friends) and they are the type that would hit an adult I make sure the parents know that either they give me the authority to administer that type of discipline or they don't leave their children there anymore. Adults need to have some means of dealing with that type of unacceptable behavior and, to be honest, kids of all ages have basically grown numb to time outs.

God bless

 

[pmcleanj]

Technically you're right, but even though the justices managed to avoid rendering a decision on a sticky topic, it as good as legalizes it... in most cases anyway, not in all, because until the federal government or provincial goverments pass new laws that do explicitly ban it, it's very unlikely that a parent would be charged for this unless they caused severe harm to the child or the child was outside of the age bracket the justices specified because tiw ould be a very easy case to appeal on conviction.

The justices ruled on the issue that was placed before them: the constitutionality of section 43. The judgement narrowed the application of section 43, and the age brackets were not the only limit placed on its application. Several paragraphs are devoted to expanding on how to determine what is '"reasonable under the circumstances" under s. 43' . In particular, paragraph 40 is explicit that "Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct" is not covered by s. 43, which opens the door to any prosecution based on expert evidence that a behaviour -- such as baring -- is degrading and harmful. I would expect expert evidence on that precise issue to be easy to find. Even those experts who testify that spanking can be non-harmful are clear that they are talking about "one or two blows to a clothed behind". In fact, paragraph 40 goes so far as to limit s. 43 to 'only minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature'.

The extended discussion makes clear that the constitutionality of s. 43 in fact depends on the strict limitation to s. 43's application. An appeal on conviction would have to address that the offense fell within those very strict limitations. I can see no reason why an astute lawyer, with evidence that corporal punishment that was not of "a trifling nature" would be reluctant to proceed with an assault prosecution.

 

[Bible Addict]

The justices ruled on the issue that was placed before them: the constitutionality of section 43. The judgement narrowed the application of section 43, and the age brackets were not the only limit placed on its application. Several paragraphs are devoted to expanding on how to determine what is '"reasonable under the circumstances" under s. 43' . In particular, paragraph 40 is explicit that "Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct" is not covered by s. 43, which opens the door to any prosecution based on expert evidence that a behaviour -- such as baring -- is degrading and harmful. I would expect expert evidence on that precise issue to be easy to find. Even those experts who testify that spanking can be non-harmful are clear that they are talking about "one or two blows to a clothed behind". In fact, paragraph 40 goes so far as to limit s. 43 to 'only minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature'.

The extended discussion makes clear that the constitutionality of s. 43 in fact depends on the strict limitation to s. 43's application. An appeal on conviction would have to address that the offense fell within those very strict limitations. I can see no reason why an astute lawyer, with evidence that corporal punishment that was not of "a trifling nature" would be reluctant to proceed with an assault prosecution.

What is "Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct"? The fact is that since these limitations and exceptions are very general, they are open to opinion and interpretation. Anyone could argue that simply scolding a child in front of othe people is degrading whether or not we agree with that, so imagine what someone could do with any kind of physical contact when bringing it before a judge, before you know it, this decision will be back before the courts for an interpretation of it's own interpretations and limitations.

Frankly, unless serious harm is brought upon a child, any Crown Attorney should realise that trying to prosecute a case with this decision hanging over their heads would be a huge waste of taxpayer's dollars because the motions to dismiss and appeals if there were a conviction would last for years anyway.

 

[pmcleanj]

What is "Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct"?

That's for a judge to decide. But to the degree that a limitation is open to opinion and interpretation, the courts rely on expert opinion. That's expert in terms of peer-reviewed journal reports of longitudinal studies, not expert in terms of a successful radio ministry or anecdotal accounts of raising seven children. Don't discount the astuteness of judges in distinguishing between the two.

Frankly, unless serious harm is brought upon a child, any Crown Attorney should realise that trying to prosecute a case with this decision hanging over their heads would be a huge waste of taxpayer's dollars because the motions to dismiss and appeals if there were a conviction would last for years anyway.

Understand that in legal argument, words are used with great precision, and lawyers and judges rely on that precision in subsequent prosecutions and judgements. The judgement made it clear that "harmful conduct" -- not the "seriously harmful conduct" that you aver -- is outside the section 43 exemption. And any appeal would require cause, which is not as easy to show as you might think.

Nor is it a waste of taxpayer's dollars to protect children from

• "Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct",
• "Corporal punishment using objects"
• "Corporal punishment which involves slaps or blows to the head"
• "outbursts of violence against a child motivated by anger or animated by frustration"
• corporal punishment of children "incapable of learning from the application of force because of disability or some other contextual factor"
• "a punitive rather than corrective focus"
• violations of "social consensus and expert evidence"
• "risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling"

which is a subset of the forms and applications of corporal punishment that the Supreme court explicitely found to be outside the protection of section 43.

It's a mistake to tell Canadian children that they are unprotected, that they need to accept the above-listed behaviours because they are between age two and twelve. It's not true, and it is unethical to deprive them of protection by encouraging people to think that such assaults will be ignored by the courts, when the courts themselves have declared those violations to be criminal assault.

 

[Lena75]

It is only okay if you have been given the authority to do so by that child's parents.



If your child hit an adult it sounds like she was in serious need of a spanking. If you didn't give your sister permission to spank your children she should not have done it though. She should have left that responsibility to you.



It sounds like you're being a bit dramatic about the spanking. Is the spanking the only thing her aunt did with her? If not I doubt that's how she'll remember her aunt.

As far as you you not wanting her to spank your children, just tell her you no longer want her to spank your children. They're your children. If you feel that you're the only one who should administer that type of discipline then that's your perrogative.

One piece of advice, if you do tell her to stop spanking your child, be prepared to tell her why. For that matter, was the spanking too heavy handed? Don't you think you're daughter deserved a spanking for hitting an adult because she didn't get her way? The main thing is, you should have a reason that you and your husband agree on before telling your sister that you're pulling her spanking authority.

I know if I am babysitting someone's child (I only occasionally babysit the children of very close friends) and they are the type that would hit an adult I make sure the parents know that either they give me the authority to administer that type of discipline or they don't leave their children there anymore. Adults need to have some means of dealing with that type of unacceptable behavior and, to be honest, kids of all ages have basically grown numb to time outs.

God bless

I know kids tire of time-outs very quickly. I only have this sister babysit as a last resort. I know what she does to her own kids (screaming and smackin'). Kids also tire of spankings and grow resentful and rebellious of their parents. Especially if that's the only punishment they know. I always give lots of choices. One day my 6 year was whiny. Wouldn't stop. Finally I told him, he can sit in a corner and cry until I say he can stop. Or he could go into the other room and clean up his toys and be happy. I tell ya, that room got cleaned up in a jiffy! After that, the problem was not a problem.
The other thing hubby and I need to consider is our special needs child. Any form of hitting affects him. Monkey see, monkey do. If we hit, he hits. Even himself. Which can lead to serious problems. That's why we need to keep low-keyed and lots of self-control. Hard to teach kids this, but we are trying. We've got lots of support from psychiatrist, psychometrist and behaviour therapy. Just so y'all know, this isn't your "regular" household.

 

[Reformationist]

I only have this sister babysit as a last resort. I know what she does to her own kids (screaming and smackin').

It sounds to me as if her spanking your children is not the problem but rather the way in which she administers physical discipline. My own sister, though we were raised by the same parents, is opposed to spanking, whereas I am not. I recently had the opportunity to speak with her about this and she informed me that she doesn't feel comfortable spanking her youngest child (her other son is about to turn 17 and too old for that type of discipline) because she is unsure about her ability to control herself during the spanking. She believes she will get too angry and go overboard. Not that she'd beat him, of course. She cares deeply for her children and shows it in every aspect of her parenting, except, of course, the discipline area. Anyway, the prompt administration of corporal punishment is not nearly as important as doing it in the proper spirit. Many parents, to include myself, often view their children's disobedience in the wrong light. Parents often have a tendency, due to frustration, to act as if our children's repeated acts of disobedience are personally aimed at aggravating us rather than simply the outworking of the natural, defiant nature of fallen man.

My suggestion, if you're interested, is to tell your sister that you'll need to ensure that she gets her own temper in check before you'll allow any physical disciple to be administered by her to your children.

Kids also tire of spankings and grow resentful and rebellious of their parents.

With all due respect to those opposed to spanking I must tell you that this is a cop out. I often hear parents express worry that their child won't like them or won't want to be around them if they spank them. NEWS FLASH!!! The spankings aren't supposed to be fun. These same parents are the parents of children who don't respect them or any other authority in their lives. I love my children dearly. Because I love them I am going to ensure, no matter how unpleasant I find spanking my child, that they respect the authority placed over them. I don't expect them not to question the authority, so long as they do so in a respectful manner. I'm not trying to raise robots. I'm just trying to teach my children that certain behavior is unacceptable and one of the tools I use to do this is spanking. It astounds me when parents think they are doing their child a service by ignoring their behavior. Children are very smart. Much smarter than most people give them credit for. My two year old son is a master at manipulation. Regardless of how cute his efforts often seems they are very transparent and cannot go uncorrected. If this type of behavior is unchecked a child will learn to threaten their parents into submission. I was watching the new Freaky Friday, starring Lindsay Lohan, yesterday and there is a scene where she is upset because he mother removed the door to her bedroom because she was getting into a lot of trouble at school, i.e., detention, skipping school, poor grades, etc. Anyway, she wants her mother to give her door back and says, "If you don't I'll....I'll....I'll kill myself." As ridiculous as this sounds it is the way a lot of our children have been trained to respond. They try to use our love for them and fear of anything happening to them against their parents. This is the reason many children will smack themselves or bang their head on the floor or a wall when they don't get their way. They do this because they know it gets to their parents. Mind you, they don't do it to actually hurt themselves. This is all manipulation. The point in all of this is that we have to actively teach our children that their attempts to threaten us with being resentful are not going to deter us from continuing to administer it. It is our responsibility to ensure that we do so in the right attitude. It is ALSO our responsibility to teach them how to properly respond to their wrongdoing. It is not enough that we spank them. They must also be taught to accept their punishment in a contrite way. They needn't be happy for their discipline. That would be asking for too much. However, if your child fights against you when you administer their discipline, whatever the form of discipline you choose, then they have not seen the error of their ways and the discipline is useless. I don't put my children over my lap, they get over my lap on their own. I don't hold them there. They stay there on their own. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Especially if that's the only punishment they know.

It should never be the ONLY punishment they know because spanking is not applicable in every case.

I always give lots of choices. One day my 6 year was whiny. Wouldn't stop. Finally I told him, he can sit in a corner and cry until I say he can stop. Or he could go into the other room and clean up his toys and be happy. I tell ya, that room got cleaned up in a jiffy! After that, the problem was not a problem.

While this was a fine example of parenting I'm curious what you would have done had he chosen to sit there and continue to be whiny. Would you have continued to let him set the tone of what's acceptable and what's not or would you have taken matters into your own hands and told him he could either stop his whining or get a spanking? Remember, it's not the spanking that is bad. The spanking is only bad when it's administered in the wrong spirit. If your love for your child prompts you to teach them that whining is an unacceptable form of expressing their frustration then a spanking is completely appropriate. If, however, you spank them because you're simply tired of hearing them whine, well, then it's not so good.

The other thing hubby and I need to consider is our special needs child. Any form of hitting affects him. Monkey see, monkey do. If we hit, he hits. Even himself. Which can lead to serious problems.

If he is learning disabled then I understand your dilemma but make sure you don't let your other child(ren) use that against you by acting out without fear of reprisal. If your problem is that your special needs child apes your behavior then administer the discipline out of his sight.

That's why we need to keep low-keyed and lots of self-control.

I'm not sure what you mean by low-keyed but ALL parents must learn and exhibit "lots of self-control."

Hard to teach kids this, but we are trying. We've got lots of support from psychiatrist, psychometrist and behaviour therapy.

While these secular forms of support have their place I hope that you have also looked to the Word of God for help.

Just so y'all know, this isn't your "regular" household.

I'm sure that having a special needs child is difficult but don't use it as your crutch for not spanking when a spanking is appropriate.

God bless

 

[Bible Addict]

That's for a judge to decide. But to the degree that a limitation is open to opinion and interpretation, the courts rely on expert opinion. That's expert in terms of peer-reviewed journal reports of longitudinal studies, not expert in terms of a successful radio ministry or anecdotal accounts of raising seven children. Don't discount the astuteness of judges in distinguishing between the two.



Understand that in legal argument, words are used with great precision, and lawyers and judges rely on that precision in subsequent prosecutions and judgements. The judgement made it clear that "harmful conduct" -- not the "seriously harmful conduct" that you aver -- is outside the section 43 exemption. And any appeal would require cause, which is not as easy to show as you might think.

Nor is it a waste of taxpayer's dollars to protect children from

• "Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct",
• "Corporal punishment using objects"
• "Corporal punishment which involves slaps or blows to the head"
• "outbursts of violence against a child motivated by anger or animated by frustration"
• corporal punishment of children "incapable of learning from the application of force because of disability or some other contextual factor"
• "a punitive rather than corrective focus"
• violations of "social consensus and expert evidence"
• "risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling"

which is a subset of the forms and applications of corporal punishment that the Supreme court explicitely found to be outside the protection of section 43.

It's a mistake to tell Canadian children that they are unprotected, that they need to accept the above-listed behaviours because they are between age two and twelve. It's not true, and it is unethical to deprive them of protection by encouraging people to think that such assaults will be ignored by the courts, when the courts themselves have declared those violations to be criminal assault.

Please don't get me wrong... I'm not saying it'a waste of taxpayer's money to protect children from degrading etc. treatment, and I'm not disagreeing even on whether or not certain forms of punishment could be classified that way, I'm just saying that until the government steps in to pass a clear and firm law that doesn't require the courts to decide whether or not something is "degrading" (because that's a very vague tem and if you get a conservative judge it will be different than a more liberal judge's opinion), there's no point in going to trial unless you have a very clear case of abuse because it would probably go on for a very long time with the appeals process or with primary motions before any results would even be seen... that's all

I just think the government should pass a new, clearer law because as it stands now, convicting on a case simply for spanking would be very uncertain and difficult, and in any case, it probably wouldn't be very near to the top of a Crown Attorney's priority list unless it was a serious case of abuse.