MA Court says parents can reasonably spank kids
 

For the first time in the state's history, Massachusetts' highest court established legal guidelines for the use of physical punishment on children by parents.

The Supreme Judicial Court said it's permissible to discipline a child by spanking, so long as "reasonable" force is used and the child isn't harmed.

See full article at http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/2...ank-their-kids

Who defines reasonable force?

Depends on how angry/embarrassed the parent is.

CPS and a judge, in the end, which was the status quo before the ruling too, I suppose...

Usually the defining question is whether it leaves a mark.

The article said that the ruling references lasting harm. And specifically includes lasting mental harm. I don't know how that is measured.

To be fair, huge portions of law are contingent on the "reasonable person" interpretation. What this ruling really says is that it's not inherently illegal in all cases.

Fair point.

I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. I am totally against smacking children (over here 'spanking' refers solely to the kind of over the knee type thing - a slap on the leg would be called smacking rather than spanking). I think it's entirely counterproductive - and can (emphasis on can) cause psychological damage - at the very least I think it's a dangerous lesson for children to learn: that to be in authority (however loving) or power over another person - particularly a smaller person - gives rights of violence.

That said - for most kids, I suspect that an occasional smack during their lives won't warp them as long as they are confident in their parent's love and the smack doesn't actually hurt all that much (I don't think children should ever be made to truly fear their parents - and if i had kids I'd hate to think they associated me in any way with the inflicting of pain). Certainly, I think that for most families where there is some minor physical chastisement, the damage caused by state or judicial intervention would most likely be far more serious and longlasting.

I too have mixed feelings, but in being "old, old, old school"
I'm probably less concerned about doing "permanent damage" than Dana.
So when it comes to "pain", my balance point has to do with where is the more serious pain.

For example, if the child has just run out into the street without paying attention to cars,
the lesson to be learned is that cars can hurt more... a lot more.
Likewise rushing up to a dog and grabbing it's tongue,
or hitting the playmate on the head with a toy, or etc., etc., etc...
In situations such as these, some actual pain serves to get their attention.

OTOH, misdeeds such as saying a "naughty word" is in a whole different category.

The fact remains there are parents that shouldn't be allowed to be within a mile of any child. Trying to legislate/judicate common sense with a one rule fits all, is bullshit. That tact has fucked up to many things already.

That's usually what "reasonable person" rules are for - to avoid writing "one rule fits all".

Exactly, but those rules don't make the zealots happy, which is why this ended up in the courts.

Now it's not necessary to beat them...