[HN Gopher] It's legal to hit children in school in 19 American ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       It's legal to hit children in school in 19 American states
        
       Author : MoSattler
       Score  : 64 points
       Date   : 2023-01-21 22:09 UTC (51 minutes ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
        
       | LarryMullins wrote:
       | Hitting kids usually isn't acceptable or productive. But
       | sometimes, rarely, it is appropriate. For instance, if a large
       | kid is beating up a smaller kid, it _may_ be appropriate to give
       | the bully a small taste of what he 's dishing out. A few spanks
       | does more harm to their dignity than anything else but gets the
       | point across. Of course I wouldn't tolerate actual beating of
       | children.
       | 
       | The one time my father ever spanked me was after I attacked my
       | little brother with a wiffle ball bat. I don't hold even the
       | slightest grudge against him for that. On the other hand, my
       | grandfather used to beat my father severely for things his
       | younger brothers did wrong, under the understanding that his sons
       | would punish each other if he punished one of them. That was
       | clearly over the line, and my father resolved to never raise his
       | own kids like that. And he didn't.
       | 
       | Should teachers be doing this though? I'm not sure. Teachers
       | often don't have enough information to know when it is or isn't
       | appropriate to spank a child. They don't _really_ know what 's
       | going on in that kid's home-life. But maybe it is sometimes
       | appropriate when they witness particularly egregious bullying at
       | school.
        
         | tptacek wrote:
         | It is absolutely not appropriate to physically assault a minor
         | to retaliate for them assaulting somebody else. We don't even
         | tolerate that logic among adults.
        
           | LarryMullins wrote:
           | Corporal punishment should be used more often for adults. It
           | is more equitable than fining people (even when those fines
           | are scaled with wealth), and it does less damage to society
           | than imprisonment. Imprisonment should be reserved for cases
           | in which the public needs to be protected from the offender.
           | 
           | Basically, Singapore has the right idea.
        
             | JumpCrisscross wrote:
             | > _more equitable than fining people_
             | 
             | Rich kids don't get beaten.
             | 
             | > _Singapore has the right idea_
             | 
             | See above.
             | 
             | Corporeal punishment shares due process issues with the
             | death penalty. If you beat the wrong guy, it's harder to
             | undo than unlocking the prison door.
        
               | LarryMullins wrote:
               | You can't retroactively unimprison a man. The time you
               | took from him can never be returned.
               | 
               | Anyway, consider this _common_ scenario in America: A man
               | misses his child support payments. Do you, fine him,
               | demanding money he doesn 't have, which should otherwise
               | have gone towards his child support payments? That
               | doesn't work. Do you imprison him for a month, so he
               | loses his job and can't make future payments? That harms
               | the kids he's supposed to be making payments to, but is a
               | common 'solution' used by American courts.
               | 
               | Better to cane the man and set him free the same day so
               | he can continue to work and pay off his debts.
        
               | JumpCrisscross wrote:
               | > _can 't retroactively unimprison a man. The time you
               | took from him can never be returned._
               | 
               | But you can return the time unserved. It's also easier to
               | turn time into money damages than pain.
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | oh_sigh wrote:
           | We kill people who kill people.
        
             | spankalee wrote:
             | We shouldn't
        
             | nine_k wrote:
             | If it's needed to protect the victim during the assault,
             | yes.
             | 
             | Otherwise, a life sentence, with the right to appeal, is
             | more error-proof.
        
         | jart wrote:
         | There are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to strike
         | a child, you monster. Hitting children shows a real failure of
         | imagination, that only the stupidest people would choose as a
         | means of punishment.
        
           | Swizec wrote:
           | > There are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to
           | strike a child
           | 
           | What if they're pointing a loaded gun at you? Think I'd
           | rather hit the kid than get shot ...
           | 
           | https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/virginia-school-
           | shooting/i...
           | 
           | Or coming at you or another student with an axe?
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Valley_High_School_attac.
           | ..
           | 
           | There's probably more examples we can find and I agree they
           | are very rare. But there certainly are circumstances where
           | the right action, in the moment, is to strike a person no
           | matter their age.
        
             | sfpotter wrote:
             | What would hitting a child accomplish in either of those
             | cases?
             | 
             | If you're able to disarm the child or remove everyone in
             | the vicinity to safety, would you still feel the need to
             | beat them? To what end?
        
         | lr4444lr wrote:
         | I don't think you deserve a down vote because it sounds like
         | you mean well, but you're wrong: kids who physically intimidate
         | usually do so _because_ they face violence or threat of it at
         | home, so it 's normalized.
        
           | jimmaswell wrote:
           | A lot of people are just born bad and the best we can hope is
           | to keep them in line with fear of punishment.
        
           | LarryMullins wrote:
           | > _kids who physically intimidate usually do so because they
           | face violence or threat of it at home, so it 's normalized._
           | 
           | I don't know about "usually" but I know that it's _sometimes_
           | the case, and that is main reason hesitant to say that
           | teachers should be allowed to do this. They don 't know
           | what's going on at that kid's home.
        
         | dragonwriter wrote:
         | > Hitting kids usually isn't acceptable or productive. But
         | sometimes, rarely, it is appropriate.
         | 
         | I disagree that these two sentenves can simultaneously be true;
         | punishment that is not productive is, _ipso facto_ , not
         | appropriate.
        
           | LarryMullins wrote:
           | > _usually ... rarely_
           | 
           | There is no contradiction here.
        
         | sfpotter wrote:
         | Please read the other responses to your comment and consider
         | the possibility that you are wrong.
         | 
         | Hitting children is never OK regardless of the form it takes.
         | Context makes no difference. There is always a better option.
         | Hitting children is the recourse of the lazy and thoughtless.
         | If you think you MUST physically discipline a child, it's
         | because you haven't considered sufficiently many options and
         | thought of something better. It is a failure of imagination on
         | your part. DON'T DO IT.
        
       | MrOwnPut wrote:
       | They brought back spanking when I was in high school.
       | 
       | Was kinda strange (and ineffective) at that age, but totally
       | better than in school suspension.
       | 
       |  _I opted in_ for it twice (uniform code violations) over iss
       | until my parents said no, he should go to iss, he 's not learning
       | his lesson lol.
       | 
       | As a kid I was spanked a few times, it was never that the
       | spanking that hurt, just the fear of getting in trouble.
       | 
       | Conflating spanking with "hitting" seems disingenuous.
       | 
       | Personally some people I interact with today should have been
       | spanked, or raised better in general.
       | 
       | And no I'm not talking about not violating dress codes etc, it's
       | fine to break the rules if you're not hurting anyone. But there's
       | a lot of bad people that would have benefitted from discipline.
        
         | diego_moita wrote:
         | Well, you are the evidence that "spanking" is wrong.
         | 
         | You trivialize brutality and violence.
         | 
         | That makes you no better than the people you want to be
         | spanked. That makes you no better than your compatriots at Abu-
         | Ghraib.
        
           | MrOwnPut wrote:
           | First, you don't know me. If you want to respond to what I
           | said go ahead, but keep the ad hominem to yourself.
           | 
           | Second, if you're coupling torture with a slap on the bum
           | then maybe _your_ world view is distorted.
        
         | jackson1442 wrote:
         | > Conflating spanking with "hitting" seems disingenuous.
         | 
         | How can you define spanking without using a term like
         | "hitting?"
         | 
         | > it's fine to break the rules *if you're not hurting anyone*
         | 
         | seems odd to have the person in authority return the favor by
         | hurting the kids as punishment
        
           | MrOwnPut wrote:
           | > How can you define spanking without using a term like
           | "hitting?"
           | 
           | You call it spanking, or slapping on the bum.
           | 
           | Hitting colloquially gives the impression of a closed-fist.
           | 
           | > seems odd to have the person in authority return the favor
           | by hurting the kids as punishment
           | 
           | The world is not fair. You can pick and choose rules based on
           | a moral code but things like dress code, drugs, etc. are the
           | institutional rules and they have setup consequences, agree
           | with them or not.
           | 
           | And if you're hurting the child you aren't spanking, you're
           | beating.
        
         | dragonwriter wrote:
         | > Conflating spanking with "hitting" seems disingenuous.
         | 
         | Spanking is intentional hitting for the purpose of inflicting
         | pain; your attempt to distinguish them is disingenuous.
        
       | DueDilligence wrote:
       | .. all I can say is .. lay a hand on my kid and you best have
       | your affairs in order.
        
       | themitigating wrote:
       | That's whether or not the parents agree.
        
         | MoSattler wrote:
         | Parents are not really asked, though. Parent's consent is
         | assumed, unless they explicitly opt their children out.
         | 
         | > Parents can put their children on the "no paddle list"--a
         | practice encouraged by a school in Kentucky if the child
         | "bruises easy", suffers from severe depression or has been
         | physically abused--but amid the back-to-school chaos many
         | forget to submit the necessary form.
        
           | akira2501 wrote:
           | > or has been physically abused
           | 
           | Literally adding insult to injury and completely seeing
           | through their own policy in one line item. "Let us know if
           | your child has been abused before so we don't accidentally
           | abuse them again."
        
           | theGnuMe wrote:
           | Sounds like a Federal civil rights violation. Someone should
           | sue.
        
         | fzeroracer wrote:
         | > In 2020 Kiory Baugh, then an ace 2nd grader in Grenada,
         | Mississippi, was paddled by her principal even though she was
         | on the no-paddle list. When Kiory came home from school she was
         | in so much pain she could not sit down. The school told Julia,
         | her mother, there was no need to take her to the hospital.
         | Julia took her to the emergency room anyway, where the doctor
         | told her he would have called the police if she had been hit
         | outside of school. She missed seven days of classes to recover.
         | After Julia complained to the district, Kiory's teacher failed
         | her. That summer Julia moved the family to Arkansas, where
         | corporal punishment is less common.
         | 
         | Alternately, even if you are on a 'no-paddle' (wtf) list, your
         | kid can still be badly abused by the school district with no
         | recourse.
        
           | patrickmay wrote:
           | Speaking as a father, there would be recourse.
        
             | braingravy wrote:
             | True, you could move away. That would be after a stranger
             | inflicts physical trauma upon your child, however. Might be
             | best to avoid that altogether?
        
               | kurthr wrote:
               | I'm not sure you (or perhaps even the parent comment?)
               | quite realize what "recourse" by a father would mean in
               | Mississippi. I read that as, shooting the principal dead
               | and possibly turning yourself in to the police. If you're
               | white, you'll probably get off with jail time. If you're
               | dark skinned or non-christian probably suicide by cop to
               | avoid the unpleasant (in)justice. It's about protecting
               | other children and making future principals think twice.
               | 
               | The US is a large country with highly variable laws and
               | customs. Just as parts of Europe refer to other parts of
               | Europe as 'North Africa'... when you say Florida or
               | Missippi in the US it has a similar twang.
        
               | braingravy wrote:
               | I think you're right, that's what the parent comment was
               | referring to. That seemed patiently ridiculous, so I made
               | a joke about how the recourse would be moving away.
               | 
               | Might be better to just make it illegal to hit children?
        
       | kube-system wrote:
       | I've always wondered why assault statutes don't apply in these
       | scenarios. I presume in loco parentis is a defense? Is this
       | something that is well tested by the courts in the places where
       | this still takes place?
        
         | tptacek wrote:
         | My understanding is that it's explicitly drawn from English
         | common law; it's not derived from "in loco parentis", but
         | rather a specific exception to the rule about assault.
         | 
         | In the states that ban it (and the major cities in most of the
         | states that don't), it's assault, of course.
        
       | tptacek wrote:
       | The map on this school colors Illinois as on the lower, but
       | nonzero, end of the corporal punishment spectrum. But corporal
       | punishment is illegal in Illinois, by statute (105 ILCS 5/24-24).
       | The Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, where
       | the Economist sourced the data for this map, lists Illinois as
       | one of the dark-blue states that bans corporal punishment
       | outright.
        
       | someweirdperson wrote:
       | There is nothing in the law of some states that explicitly
       | prevents schools from beating children. The protection that may
       | be granted by the constitution doesn't apply to children for some
       | reason. Did I understand this correctly?
        
         | tptacek wrote:
         | Most states outlaw corporal punishment in schools, but some do
         | not, because there is a tradition going all the way back to
         | English common law (like, it's in Blackstone's explicitly) that
         | moderate physical correction by schoolmasters is an exception
         | to the general rule that people must be free from physical
         | assault.
         | 
         | In the states that don't currently ban corporal punishments in
         | schools, it's likely that the municipal centers of those states
         | do. By way of example: this article had to focus on Union
         | County MS, which is in the middle of nowhere even for
         | Mississippi. Jackson is the municipal center of Mississippi,
         | and it bans corporal punishment.
        
       | rayiner wrote:
       | In Bangladeshi schools they punish misbehaving kids by putting
       | pencils between their fingers and squeezing. I'm conflicted on
       | the subject. On one hand my default assumption is that Americans
       | know better and physical discipline is barbaric and backwards. On
       | the other hand the empirical evidence of how poorly American kids
       | are behaved seems to undermine the idea that they know what
       | they're doing when it comes to child rearing.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | robocat wrote:
       | https://archive.vn/1eCAY (if the .today link doesn't work for
       | you. Edit: archive.today still gives me a 502 and .vn works)
        
         | jart wrote:
         | Why would a .today link not work for someone? Speaking of
         | which, there's also https://archive.is/1eCAY
        
       | jimbo99912 wrote:
       | There's some law on the books (Texas maybe?) about it being a
       | hanging offense to engage in cattle wrustling. Perhaps I'm
       | remembering it incorrectly.
       | 
       | This is likely to be a similar sort of law (or lack of a law
       | saying it isn't allowed), where it may technically be true that
       | this is allowed but realistically you would end up in all sorts
       | of legal trouble for hitting students.
        
         | MoSattler wrote:
         | From the article:
         | 
         | > In 2018, the year for which the latest numbers are available,
         | 69,000 American children were hit by public-school staff
        
           | jimbo9991 wrote:
           | I stand corrected, that's wild.
        
             | RajT88 wrote:
             | From my generation at least (teenagers from the 90's), I
             | heard stories not of beatings, but getting whacked on the
             | knuckles by nuns in private catholic schools.
             | 
             | The private catholic schools in my town being a mix of kids
             | with religious parents, bad kids who got kicked out of
             | public high schools and parents who didn't want a co-ed
             | education for their kids.
        
         | bsder wrote:
         | > There's some law on the books (Texas maybe?) about it being a
         | hanging offense to engage in cattle wrustling. Perhaps I'm
         | remembering it incorrectly.
         | 
         | You are not wrong: "cattle rustling" is indeed still a hanging
         | offense in Texas.
         | 
         | What makes this a bit interesting is that, technically, if you
         | eat a steak and then don't pay for it, you have engaged in
         | "cattle rustling".
         | 
         | So, dine and dash at a steakhouse could legally be punished by
         | a hanging.
        
       | roamerz wrote:
       | From the comments my views will definitely be in the minority
       | here.
       | 
       | Personal experience: Every school I attended through 12th grade
       | had corporal punishment in place. In 5th grade I was punished by
       | a Catholic Nun who broke a ruler over my hands as they were
       | laying flat on the desk. It was deserved and fixed the problem at
       | hand and by example to the other students. (haha no pun
       | intended). I actually have a fond memory of it now as they made
       | my parents pay for the broken ruler. We laugh about it now and
       | then. It happened again in HS and remember being scared shitless
       | because it was being administered by a teacher with a good rep
       | for painful swats. It solved the issues that time as well.
       | Neither instance caused any psychological damage to me(that i'm
       | aware of) and helped keep our learning environment a place where
       | people can actually go to learn.
       | 
       | Corporal punishment is no longer practiced in my state. I would
       | support it if it came back. It's an effective tool.
        
         | eh9 wrote:
         | I don't want to speak to your personal trauma, but child abuse
         | is never an effective tool.
        
           | slibhb wrote:
           | Defining corporeal punishment as "child abuse" is incorrect.
        
         | drsnow wrote:
         | If a teacher broke a damn ruler over my hands, let alone making
         | my family pay for it when we grew up broke, I have to say, I
         | would swing on her.
        
         | isthisthingon99 wrote:
         | Same. We've been smacking kids for tens of thousands of years
         | to protect them and society. There is a difference between
         | smacking kids and abusing them.
         | 
         | I got smacked, but in a way that was traumatizing(?) as I
         | remember every second of it decades later. Still, it did
         | actually encourage me to improve the thing I got smacked about
         | and probably led to me being as successful as I am (such as it
         | were.)
        
         | diego_moita wrote:
         | From this comment I assume that you are from the country that
         | gave us the "enforced questioning" loved by Dick Cheney and Fox
         | News and practiced in Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo.
         | 
         | What can I say? It is America, give them mass shootings, death
         | penalty and spanking. For each it's own.
        
         | vidarh wrote:
         | It is fairly normal for victims of violence to seek to explain
         | away the abuse they were subjected to as deserved or necessary
         | when carried out by someone in authority over them.
         | 
         | It doesn't change that it is harmful abuse. I'm sorry you were
         | subjected to that kind of abuse, even though you believe it was
         | justified.
         | 
         | There's nothing to suggest it serves a legitimate purpose.
        
         | schemescape wrote:
         | > It's an effective tool.
         | 
         | Citation needed.
        
           | MrOwnPut wrote:
           | It's their personal anecdote.
        
         | AnimalMuppet wrote:
         | It _can_ be an effective tool. Or it _can_ be abused (and, in
         | fact, be abuse).
         | 
         | My own memory is of the time I _wasn 't_ hit. I was in
         | elementary school. The principal was out shoveling snow off of
         | the sidewalk where it crossed a driveway. I was out on recess,
         | and I hit her with a snowball. She didn't hit me, though school
         | policy allowed it at the time. Instead, she just had _me_
         | shovel the snow. (Duh... what did I think was going to happen?)
        
         | teaearlgraycold wrote:
         | I can say that for me being told by someone I respected that I
         | was doing something wrong was always enough to stop poor
         | behavior.
        
       | stjohnswarts wrote:
       | * * *
        
       | JumpCrisscross wrote:
       | Never thought about this, but for teachers outside Mississippi, a
       | job-gating question should be "have you ever hit a child".
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | rom-antics wrote:
       | Can the children defend themselves, or are they legally required
       | to passively accept the beatings? If you're going to beat
       | people's kids, at least level the playing field.
        
         | curiousllama wrote:
         | There's actually formal combat rules, similar to dueling. It's
         | fairly progressive for that part of the world
        
           | paulcole wrote:
           | I don't get why you're downvoted but the guy who asked if the
           | kids can defend themselves gets upvoted lmao.
        
         | FeistySkink wrote:
         | How is a child supposed to defend themselves from an adult?
        
           | sam36 wrote:
           | [flagged]
        
             | WithinReason wrote:
             | Fair enough
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | I'd be curious if assault charges have been levied against a
           | child who fought back a violent teacher.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | spankalee wrote:
           | I punched a teacher once in high school after he violently
           | grabbed and yanked me. We just stared at each other, and then
           | I walked away. I would have absolutely pressed charges
           | otherwise.
           | 
           | As a parent now, god help any teacher that would dare lay
           | hands on my kid.
        
         | grecy wrote:
         | I always thought the same should apply to bear, elephant, lion,
         | etc. hunting.
         | 
         | Absolutely a person should be able to prove how tough they are.
         | 
         | Bare handed.
        
       | eh9 wrote:
       | A child in a similar situation could be removed from their home.
       | Shouldn't protection agencies be involved?
       | 
       | This feels like state sponsored child abuse. When does the
       | federal government intervine?
        
       | boomboomsubban wrote:
       | Opt out child beating is not something I ever would have dreamed
       | was still going on in America. At the bare minimum make it opt
       | in.
        
       | vitaflo wrote:
       | I do remember my 5th grade teacher had a cracked paddle sitting
       | on the chalkboard at all times. He pointed it out when we started
       | the class and it was there as a daily reminder. This was a US
       | public school in the mid-80s. Nobody back then had a problem with
       | it. Certainly a different time.
        
       | EMIRELADERO wrote:
       | Corporal punishment by parents is allowed in even more states. I
       | see that as much graver.
        
       | belfalas wrote:
       | I was friends with someone who did Teach for America in
       | Mississippi. They paddled the kids in the school which my friend
       | at first found shocking, she refused to participate.
       | 
       | The explanation that made the most "sense" was that, at home,
       | corporal punishment was how the parents disciplined the kids. So
       | if at school all you got was a verbal warning the kids wouldn't
       | take it seriously.
       | 
       | IMHO by the time corporal punishment becomes 'the answer' there
       | are way bigger structural issues to examine.
        
         | grecy wrote:
         | My Dad was a teacher in Australia when that kind of thing was
         | still legal.
         | 
         | It was his first year of teaching (so he was about 22) and he
         | only ever did it to one kid who was a notorious trouble making.
         | 
         | He was telling me just before Christmas that he still remembers
         | that kid's name, and still regrets doing it and wishes he
         | didn't.
         | 
         | My Dad is now 71 years old.
        
         | kube-system wrote:
         | > IMHO by the time corporal punishment becomes 'the answer'
         | there are way bigger structural issues to examine.
         | 
         | If this is what's notable about education there, you're
         | probably right:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada,_Mississippi#Education
        
           | roughly wrote:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_God_for_Mississippi
        
       | jlkweaegr wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | rayiner wrote:
       | * * *
        
       | NelsonMinar wrote:
       | One thing I love about reading the Economist is the non-American
       | perspective it gives me on American news. In the US we call this
       | "corporeal punishment" or "spanking" and pretend like it's rare,
       | no big deal, and maybe necessary. The Economist doesn't mince
       | words referring to it as "hit", "beat", "strike", "hurt", and
       | finally "criminal assault".
        
         | saghm wrote:
         | > In the US we call this "corporeal punishment" or "spanking"
         | and pretend like it's rare, no big deal, and maybe necessary.
         | 
         | To be clear, not everyone in the US feels this way. I'm shocked
         | and saddened that it's legal in 19 states, and I would
         | categorically not vote for anyone who I knew would support
         | legalizing it in the others. The sad reality is that the
         | political system in the US can sometimes make it extremely
         | difficult to enact and enforce popular measures.
        
         | MoSattler wrote:
         | I guess it's the European perspective, where most countries
         | have outlawed any corporeal punishment.
        
           | afandian wrote:
           | Asking out of pure curiosity, as you repeated that spelling.
           | In the UK we say "corporal" not "corporeal". Is the latter
           | standard in US English?
        
             | jackson1442 wrote:
             | Corporal is standard in the US as well, may be confusing
             | the terms because "corporeal" does (loosely) mean "of the
             | flesh" as well.
        
             | czx4f4bd wrote:
             | It's not. "Corporal punishment" is the correct spelling in
             | the US, too.
        
             | rayiner wrote:
             | Its corporal punishment in the US too. Corporeal means
             | having a physical body.
        
             | enkid wrote:
             | Edit: Language is a construct set by society. Merriam
             | Webster states corporal punishment is the correct term, but
             | corporeal is the word that means "of the body." Corporal
             | used to mean of the body but is not used that way outside
             | the specific term corporal punishment. Ignore the below.
             | 
             | Corporal is a rank in the military. Corporeal (pronounced
             | something like core pore ree al) is having to do with a
             | person's body, but isn't used in often outside of the
             | phrase "corporeal punishment."
        
               | czx4f4bd wrote:
               | "Corporeal punishment" is not a phrase. It's "corporal
               | punishment".
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment
        
               | afandian wrote:
               | Corporal means "of the body" too. Though, as siblings
               | comments have noted, in a less theological framing.
        
             | pcdevils wrote:
             | US news and dictionaries say corporal like the UK.
             | Corporeal makes it sound like beating the physical being of
             | the spirit. Which, depending on your views may seem right,
             | whilst being grammatically incorrect.
        
             | gpm wrote:
             | Corporeal is an entirely different word, roughly meaning
             | "with some form of body that can be physically touched". A
             | ghost isn't corporeal, a human is. An ebook isn't
             | corporeal, an ebook-reader is.
             | 
             | With auto-complete/spellcheck and neither word being used
             | often, it's not surprising that someone would mix the two
             | up.
        
           | madaxe_again wrote:
           | They have, although the article gets it wrong - the U.K. did
           | _not_ ban it in 1986, as my school experience attests - I was
           | caned frequently, and a caning was, honestly, preferable to
           | the alternatives which usually involved gravel.
           | 
           | It was banned in _state funded_ schools in 1986. Public (i.e.
           | private) schools, 1999. I suppose at least it gave parents
           | the choice as to whether or not they'd like their kids to be
           | beaten, and at least at school they didn't use the buckle end
           | of a belt, just a meter rule.
        
       | devwastaken wrote:
       | I don't believe this is true. 42 USC 1983 allows government
       | actors to be sued for civil rights violations. Much of the
       | precedence for capital punishment is before this, and is unlikely
       | to be upheld.
       | 
       | While on the books it may look legal, if parents were to bring a
       | lawsuit they would likely win.
        
       | nimbius wrote:
       | Unsurprising from a country who's prison population makes the
       | height of the soviet gulag look like a summer camp. The US also
       | routinely resists reforms to its juvenile incarceration system,
       | separates migrant children incarcerated at the border from their
       | families, and removes children from families who cannot afford
       | foster care services. The US also still refuses to adopt the UN
       | rights of the child.
        
         | jey wrote:
         | > The US also still refuses to adopt the UN rights of the
         | child.
         | 
         | Interesting:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Conve...
        
       | MoSattler wrote:
       | http://archive.today/1eCAY
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-21 23:00 UTC)