Bad News for the A2K Anti-Spanking Lobby

TEXAS

Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm. Family Code Sec. 261.001.[Ci.] Parent/stepparent/person standing in loco parentis to child is justified to use non-deadly force against a child under 18 when and to degree the actor reasonably believes necessary to discipline, or safeguard or promote child's welfare. Penal Sec. 9.61.[Cr.]

There sure is a lot of hemming and hawing and maybe's here, just as I claimed..

48 hours? You really are a cold hearted S.O.B...

48 hours? You really are a cold hearted S.O.B...

Is it really so impossible to write a statute that says some thing like "spanking and other discipline blows are legal so long as no bones are broken, there is no bleeding, and any mark is gone with-in 48 hours??

The point isn't to have every human interaction rigidly defined so that some asshole can look at the law and say, "how much abuse can I dish out before they can convict me?"

How does punishing a two year old translate into a finding that deadly force was applied?

A CPS spokesperson told KZTV-10 that spanking is only considered criminal when it injures the child.

we are told that the only damage was red skin

So? That's what courts are for. They sort out the messy crap.

I have no need for an argument for what is reasonable and unreasonable.

You are the one who has a case to bolster; you seem to be failing to do so.

I don't think that reasonable people have trouble reading the law and interpreting it.

We face a Congress that puts forth an ever-increasing volume of laws in general, and of criminal laws in particular. It should be no surprise that as the volume increases, so do the number of imprecise laws. And no surprise that our indulgence of imprecisions that violate the Constitution encourages imprecisions that violate the Constitution. Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nitty gritty. In the field of criminal law, at least, it is time to call a halt. I do not think it would be a radical step—indeed, I think it would be highly responsible—to limit ACCA to the named violent crimes. Congress can quickly add what it wishes. Because the majority prefers to let vagueness reign, I respectfully dissent.

Is it really so impossible to write a statute that says some thing like "spanking and other discipline blows are legal so long as no bones are broken, there is no bleeding, and any mark is gone with-in 48 hours??

I don't think that reasonable people have trouble reading the law and interpreting it.

Who, except someone who might be violating child abuse laws, is going to worry about whether the degree of force, or the degree of injury, they are inflicting on their children is criminal?

Combine vagueness with the ever expanding number of statutes and regulations affecting businesses and entrepreneurs on a daily basis and the result is a government bureaucracy with almost unlimited power to intimidate and blackmail citizens with the threat of prosecution--or to punish practically any conduct they choose to declare "illegal." Two centuries ago James Madison warned that it would be "of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." But every year Congress and federal regulators create new restrictions, often written in impenetrable jargon or broad mandates that cannot be understood until after charges are filed.

Even worse are vague laws that aren't actually laws at all but common law concepts--most notably the theory of "public nuisance." This is an ancient legal concept that started out as a crime but is now regarded as a civil law matter. The exact definition of the term is anybody's guess. The famous law professor William Prosser called it a "legal garbage can" full of "vagueness, uncertainty and confusion," and one California court called it an "impenetrable jungle" that "has meant all things to all people and has been applied indiscriminately to everything from an alarming advertisement to a cockroach baked in a pie."

That ambiguity makes "public nuisance" a powerful tool in the hands of ambitious politicians. California Attorney General Jerry Brown prosecuted General Motors for "public nuisance" on the ground that they make and sell cars, thereby contributing to pollution. Never mind that making cars is perfectly legal and that California itself operates a fleet of more than 100,000. Other public nuisance cases have been brought against gun makers, oil companies and manufacturers of paint for selling perfectly legal products. The goal isn't to win cases but to give prosecutors headlines and obtain hefty settlements from intimidated corporations.

48 hours? You really are a cold hearted S.O.B...

We take no position on whether Skilling committed a crime, or even the crime at issue here (whatever that may be). Instead, we argue that the Court should clarify that the constitutional prohibition on vague laws protects sophisticated and unsophisticated defendants alike in the realm of economic regulation, as well as in criminal law. The due process requirements of fair warning and definiteness apply equally in the contexts of white collar business crimes, business torts, and civil regulations.

Vague laws involve three basic dangers: First, they may harm the innocent by failing to warn of the offense. Second, they encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement because vague laws delegate enforcement and statutory interpretation to individual government officials. Third, because citizens will take extra precautions to avoid violating the law, vague laws inhibit our individual freedom