French bus driver slaps teenager for disrespect

CountingR wrote: »

Just wondering - you say that you ‘reserve the right’ to slap your child if you deem it necessary. I have a few questions/issues on that:

Firstly does your right to hit your child supercede your child’s right not to be hit?

Yes. I have an obligation and responsibility for the safety and discipline of my child. My child has no obligation or responsibility to not be kept safe or disciplined.

As an adult, we have a right not to be hit/assaulted and there is a system there for us to make a complaint and seek action if that does happen...

Operative term: "As an adult". There are some inherent assumptions in this, such as that "adults are supposed to act like adults". Further, the redress options are much wider, varying from civil suit to imprisonment and fining. You can't really sue a 16-year-old. And I'm not talking about 'adult' as in '18th birthday, you magically become mature', I'm talking 'old enough to be responsible'.

There is another assumption in there that you make: That violence against adults is always prohibited or inappropriate. Try to cross a Garda line and see how far you get before hands are laid upon you. Gardai can do it because they are the authority of the state. In my house, I am the authority of my children, along with my wife (Being latina, she doesn't use her hand. She has the "chancla", a parenting assistance tool of known fear and respect throughout the Hispanic-American world. She has never as yet had to resort to it, mind. Indeed, even in her family, the mere sight of mama reaching for la chancla was normally sufficient to correct errant behaviour).

Secondly, do you believe all parents have a right to exercise their own judgement in when hitting a child is justified. Maybe you do it, when there is a physical danger to the child. Maybe that’s justified, maybe not. However maybe someone else deems cheekiness enough to warrant a smack. Is that right? And if so, where does society draw the line? If you can hit your child for what you deem a justified reason, and you can make that decision, then can I do the same? You see the problem here. This has to be black and white. Otherwise, children will end up as the losers in the whole thing (even if your approach to slapping or hitting is measured and reasonable in your own mind).

Isn't that the difficult part of things? And does it have to be black and white?

The relevant law on the matter around here in California seems to be a reasonable compromise.
"Any person who willfully inflicts upon a child any cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or an injury resulting in a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony" (California Penal Code Title 9, Chapter 2, 273d)

The definition of what counts as "cruel or inhuman" is, of course, going to be left to the jury, but it is not a total prohibition on corporal punishment. Quoting one legal website "Spanking is usually not considered child abuse because parents have a right to discipline their children “reasonably” in a manner they see fit. Spanking, when used to discipline, is not considered child abuse under California law unless it becomes unreasonable, excessive, or causes bodily injury." Like any adult (there's that word again), we are expected to be judicious and sensible in our decisions. Such subjectivity is not unusual in law, for example, in Ireland you may use 'reasonable force' to repel an intruder in your home. What you think is reasonable may not match with what the jury thinks is reasonable, but the chances are you're going to be at least an outlier before you even get to that point.

Finally, if laws around slapping a child are further tightened, would you forfeit your right? If you slapped your child in public now, you could be in some legal trouble - does your right outweigh the law?

Fortunately, where I live, it is not a question. Given my reluctance thus far to use corporal punishment (two slaps in 9 years), for things to get to that point in public, I strongly doubt witnesses in the trial would advocate against the 'disciplining' defense.

Where things really get difficult are cases like this bus driver here, where one is attempting to discipline someone else's child.

For example, in a number of States, corporal punishment in schools is still permitted, but only under full accounting for oversight, and with the specific opt-in of the parents who authorise the school to be a disciplinary agent for them. But even there, there are some specific controls beyond the legal ones, such as "the school knows the kid, where they live, and where they'll be".

For random, one-off encounters, those controls don't exist. It's well saying "The kid should be reported to the school or his parents", but the practical realities of it are that it doesn't happen. Kids around here don't wear identification tags. Even if the random adult calls the police, what power does he have to keep the child there to be called to account over the next ten minutes whilst the police decide they have nothing more pressing to deal with and show up? May he physically restrain the child as a citizen's arrest? If we are to assume that actions must have consequences, the logical conclusion is that there must be a mechanism to make consequences actually happen.

The next question, doubtless asked, is "If it were my kid, would I want the driver giving her a slap?" My immediate response is, no, of course not, but then, I simply cannot imagine my daughter ever acting like a little ****e to begin with so I can't think of any situation which would warrant it. The reality is, though, that she might, despite what I think of her.

I would propose a default of unlawfulness. Anyone who disciplines someone else's child gets brought up on charges and put in front of a jury, on the base presumption that there was no need for it, especially absent parental authority. However, if he/she can convince the jury that the action was not excessive and not unwarranted, that would be sufficient defense. This default presumption of 'you will be convicted, unless you can prove you were not unreasonable' should attain much of the same legal deterrent effect, whilst not leaving children to totally act as they will free in the knowledge that really, no consequences will result.