DOCSLIB.ORG

Revised Reasonable Discipline Recommendations-FINAL2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revised Reasonable Discipline Recommendations-FINAL2 84TH PRIORITY | DECEMBER 2014 Corporal Punishment and Physical Abuse: Defining Reasonable Discipline in Texas INTRODUCTION Corporal punishment is legal in Texas as a form of child discipline. However, almost all physical child abuse begins with the intent of corporal punishment. Texas law regarding the limits of corporal punishment needs clarification in statute. Texas code exempts “reasonable discipline” from its classification of physical abuse, yet the code fails to define its meaning. A definition for the term “reasonable discipline” must be made in order to clarify this statute for law enforcement, Child Protective Services, as well as parents and caregivers. Given the examples other states have set and expert medical advice, it is recommended that the Texas Family Code include a definition of reasonable physical discipline and proposes the following concepts that could be incorporated into a definition: does not result in an injury; is delivered to a child over the age of two, with the intent of correcting the child’s behavior; excludes the use of an object; excludes all body parts except for the buttocks, and excludes aggressive acts such as kicking, throwing, shaking, or any act resulting in interrupted breathing. Having a guiding definition of discipline could eliminate forms of punishment that may ultimately lead to serious physical abuse or injury of a child. “REASONABLE DISCIPLINE” AND THE CURRENT STATUTE The current definition of physical abuse in Texas appears subjective and fails to adequately differentiate between abuse and reasonable discipline, leaving too much room for interpretation and therefore an increased risk for discipline to lead to abuse. In Texas, Section 261.001 of the Family Code defines abuse of a child as inclusive of “physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm.” The statute notably lacks a definition for “reasonable discipline.” The phrasing of the Texas statute leaves the interpretation of what constitutes “reasonable discipline” widely open, failing to provide adequate guidance for parents and for synchronized enforcement by Child Protective Services and court systems. In addition, an important consideration is the latitude the exception gives to prosecutors. A vague definition blurs the line between physical punishment/discipline and physical abuse, leaving Texas children unprotected. However, if the definition is too narrow, the statute could exclude some overlooked forms of harmful discipline. For example, in Canada, the Supreme Court decided on seven criteria that would determine reasonable discipline: the discipline must be by a parent; 2 must be delivered to a child between two and 12; must be educational to the child; must be minor and transitory; must not use objects or involve hitting the head; must not be a result of the parent’s own anger; and must not be demeaning or harmful. When researchers reviewed these criteria, they found that they would deem a significant percentage of child abuse cases legal, which makes the criteria appear arbitrary and unhelpful. Clearly, some specificity is needed, but it is the responsibility of states to make the determination. Of critical note: An expanding amount of research continues to confirm that the use of physical acts to punish a child is not an effective method of discipline and, in fact, has numerous adverse effects on a child. Because physical punishment uses the stimulus of discomfort for conditioning, there is an inherent risk of overusing the stimulus in an attempt to get desired results (behavior compliance) and causing injury to the child, even by well-meaning parents. In fact, studies have shown that 2/3 of substantiated child physical abuse begins with the intention to discipline using physical acts. RECOMMENDATIONS Texas could adopt or create a definition of reasonable discipline by eliciting concepts from other states’ statutes that would be most appropriate to Texas. Currently, sixteen states, including Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi, as well as the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands allow for exceptions to physical abuse to include some forms of physical discipline, as long as the discipline does not cause injury and is “reasonable.” However, states and territories choose to define the word in various ways. For example, the District of Columbia’s statute on child abuse excuses reasonable parental discipline which is “moderate” and does not include burning, biting, or cutting; hitting with a fist; causing injury by “shaking, kicking or throwing”; causing intentional injury to a child under 18 months; interrupting breathing; and threatening with or using a weapon (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2011, p. 25). Arkansas excludes from its child abuse statute “reasonable and moderate physical discipline…that shall not include an act that is likely to cause and that does cause injury more serious than transient pain or minor temporary marks” (p. 16). California’s exception appears to have the most stringent limitations, noting “serious physical harm does not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks where there is no evidence of serious physical injury” (p. 19). Overall, state definitions appear to incorporate one or more of the following variables: intent, specific action, result, and interference in development. In addition to states and territories, the medical community also has a stance on using physical punishment to discipline a child. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP; 1998), Forms of physical punishment, such as striking a child with an object, striking a child on parts of the body other than the buttocks or extremities, striking a child with such intensity that marks lasting more than a few minutes occur, pulling a child's hair, jerking a child by the arm, shaking a child, and physical punishment delivered in anger with the Defining Reasonable Discipline in Texas www.texprotects.org 3 intent to cause pain, are unacceptable and may be dangerous to the health and well- being of the child. (p.726) The AAP goes on to discuss the likelihood that physical punishment oftentimes escalates, which underscores the need to draw a solid line of limitation. Given examples set forth by other states, expert advisory, and the need to balance specificity with judicial latitude, Texas’ statute could be changed to define “reasonable physical discipline” as that which incorporates these components or concepts: 1. Does not result in an injury; 2. Is delivered to a child over the age of two, with the intent of correcting the child’s behavior; 3. Excludes the use of an object; 4. Excludes aggressive acts such as kicking, throwing, and shaking, or any act resulting in interrupted breathing; 5. Avoids all body parts excluding the buttocks. CONCLUSION To conclude, “reasonable physical discipline” must be defined in Texas statute in order to clarify existing guidelines for Texas agencies and courts and to protect children’s’ well-being. States have defined the term in various ways, but the professional advice is clear. Drawing from states’ precedents and expert recommendation, Texas should hone its statute to reflect a vital understanding of the powerful implications of the terminology and define discipline in a manner that protects best protects our children. Defining Reasonable Discipline in Texas www.texprotects.org 4 REFERENCES American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (1998). Guidance for effective discipline. Pediatrics, 101(4), 723-728. Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). Definitions of child abuse and neglect (DHHS Publication). Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf Coleman, Dodge, & Campbell. (2010). Where and how to draw the line between reasonable and corporal punishment and abuse. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73:107, 107-165. Durrant, J. E., Trocme, N., Fallon, B., Milne, C., & Black. T. (2009). Protection of children from physical maltreatment in Canada: An evaluation of the Supreme Court’s definition of reasonable force. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 18(1), 64-87. Gershoff, E. (2010). More Harm Than Good: A summary of scientific research on the intended and unintended effects of corporal punishment on children. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(31), 31–56. Han, S. (2011). Probability of Corporal Punishment: Lack of resources and vulnerable students. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 420–430. Schmueli, B. (2010). Corporal Punishment in the educational System Versus Corporal Punishment By Parents: A comparative review. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(281), 281–320. Zoloto, A. J., Theodore, A. D., Runyan, D. K., Chang, J. J., & Laskey, A. L. (2011). Corporal Punishment and Physical Abuse: population-based trends for three-to-eleven-year-old children in the United States. Child Abuse Review, 20, 57–66. DOI: 10.1002/car.1128. For More Information 2904 FLOYD STREET Sophie Phillips SUITE A Director of Research DALLAS, TX 75204 [email protected] 214.442.1672 ext. 622 t 214.442.1672 Emily Decker f 214.442.1644 Research Specialist [email protected] (214) 762-2090 TexProtects’ mission is to reduce and prevent child abuse and neglect through research, education, and advocacy. TexProtects effects change by organizing its members to advocate for increased investments in evidence-based child abuse prevention programs, CPS reforms, and treatment programs to heal abuse victims. Defining Reasonable Discipline in Texas www.texprotects.org .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PROHIBITING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DOES NOT MEAN CRIMINALISING PARENTS a Fact Sheet to Counter the Claim That Parents Will Be Criminalised
    FACT SHEET 1 FOR PROMOTING POSITIVE DISCIPLINE PROHIBITING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DOES NOT MEAN CRIMINALISING PARENTS A fact sheet to counter the claim that parents will be criminalised SONKE GENDER JUSTICE Sonke Gender Justice is a non- has established a growing presence on the African continent and plays an active role internationally. Sonke works to create the change necessary for men, women, young people and children to enjoy equitable, healthy and happy relationships that contribute to the development of just and democratic societies. Sonke pursues this goal across Southern Africa by using a THE FACTS human rights framework to build the capacity of government, civil Unfortuantely, children routinely do not report the most egregious harm done to society organisations and citizens 1 them; it is highly unlikely that they will beat a path to the door of the police station to achieve gender equality, prevent because someone smacked them. gender-based violence and reduce the spread of HIV and the impact of In any event, South African law operates on the principle that the law does not AIDS. 2 concern itself with that which is trivial (de minimas curat lex) which applies equally to MENCARE adults and children who have been subject to less serious assaults. MenCare – A Global Fatherhood Imprisonment of their parents is seldom in children’s best interest, and will only Campaign – is coordinated by 3 happen where corporal punishment has been severe enough to cause injury, and in Promundo, Sonke Gender Justice the best interests of the child in question. (Sonke) and the MenEngage THE MYTH Alliance, as an effort to promote The majority of the current international men’s involvement as fathers and 4 as caregivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with At-Risk Families
    ISSUE BRIEF January 2013 Parent-Child Interaction Therapy With At-Risk Families Parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) is a family-centered What’s Inside: treatment approach proven effective for abused and at-risk children ages 2 to 8 and their caregivers—birth parents, • What makes PCIT unique? adoptive parents, or foster or kin caregivers. During PCIT, • Key components therapists coach parents while they interact with their • Effectiveness of PCIT children, teaching caregivers strategies that will promote • Implementation in a child positive behaviors in children who have disruptive or welfare setting externalizing behavior problems. Research has shown that, as a result of PCIT, parents learn more effective parenting • Resources for further information techniques, the behavior problems of children decrease, and the quality of the parent-child relationship improves. Child Welfare Information Gateway Children’s Bureau/ACYF 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20024 800.394.3366 Email: [email protected] Use your smartphone to https:\\www.childwelfare.gov access this issue brief online. Parent-Child Interaction Therapy With At-Risk Families https://www.childwelfare.gov This issue brief is intended to build a better of the model, which have been experienced understanding of the characteristics and by families along the child welfare continuum, benefits of PCIT. It was written primarily to such as at-risk families and those with help child welfare caseworkers and other confirmed reports of maltreatment or neglect, professionals who work with at-risk families are described below. make more informed decisions about when to refer parents and caregivers, along with their children, to PCIT programs.
    [Show full text]
  • 98675NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of JUstice - This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the pe~~on ~r organization originating it. Points of View or opinions stated In IS entocument are those of the authors and do not necessarll Jrepresustlce. the offiCial position or policies of the National Institute OYf Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has bee granted by n _Bn~_Violence Against the Next ~eration---··· -------------- to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ Sion of the cOPYright Owner THE INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL THE INFLUENCE CORPORAL PUNISHMENTS OF SCHOOL ON CRIME CORPORAL PUNISHMENTS ON CRIME ) -by- "'ADAH MAURER -by­ and ADAH MAURER . JAMES S. WALLERSTEIN and JAMES S. WALLERSTEIN \ ; < d ) c· - ......,.....----- ,~----'~----- THE INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL Young male drivers who had oppressive school experiences were CORPORAL PUNISHMENTS ON CRIME inclined toward "speeding, recklessness, lawlessness and defiance of A STATISTICAL STUDY authority." (7) Do delinquents grow from "lack of discipline" or from too much by Adah Maurer and James S. Wallerstein discipline? Dr. Alan Button reports, "This, it now appears, is the wrong question. We should be asking about the sequence. Parents of delin­ . There are still some pundits, although a dwindling number, who quents, 100% of them, report physical beatings in the first six to ten years attnbute our "alarming" crime and delinquency to the decline of corporal of a child's life, but rarely thereafter. They 'wash their hands' of the kids, punishment in school and home.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Offences CRIN Is a Global Network Coordinating Information and Promoting Action on Child Rights
    Guide to mechanisms for children’s rights Global Report on Status Offences CRIN is a global network coordinating information and promoting action on child rights. More than 2,000 member organisations and tens of thousands more activists from across the world rely on CRIN for research and information. CRIN presses for rights, not charity, for children and is guided by a passion for putting children’s rights at the top of the global agenda by addressing root causes and promoting systematic change. Its guiding framework is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). First published 2009 © Child Rights Information Network 2010 The Child Rights Information Network is a charity registered in England and Wales (1125925). Registered Company No. 6653398. CRIN encourages personal and educational use of this publication and grants permission for its reproduction in this capacity where proper credit is given in good faith. For resale or commercial distribution in any other manner, prior permission must be obtained in writing from the publisher. Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 Curfews..............................................................................................................................................................2 Curfew reform....................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • When Parents Disagree on How to Discipline
    When Parents Disagree on How to Discipline by Karen Stephens Families can weather occasional parenting differences. But when discipline styles are vastly different, children suffer as does the parent partnership. Discipline disagreements that regularly spin out of control threaten children’s sense of trust, security, and stability. Children know when their behavior is the center of conflict, so they suffer guilt, too. When the outcome of a discipline decision will have small impact on family harmony and children’s well-being, parents often take turns bowing to each other’s preference. One parent often defers to the other’s wishes based on past experi- ences or perceived expertise. For instance, a parent who played an instrument as a child may be granted final say on how to discipline a child who avoids practicing. For overall family harmony, it’s wise to plan ahead on ways parents can cope with differing discipline beliefs. Dr. Connor Walters, certified Family Life Educator at Early in Illinois State University, recommends the following as first steps. Before You Face a Discipline Disagreement • Early in childrearing (if not before!), parents should talk about child discipline childrearing, beliefs and their goals for discipline. Following are questions to discuss: What values do you want to encourage in children? Do you want children to learn self-control and become self-directed? Is your goal for children to become sensitive to the feelings and needs of others? Do you hope children will learn parents to take responsibility and accept the consequences of their behavior? • Next, analyze how your child-rearing methods support or work against the goals you discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Spanking Should Be Discouraged by Eliza Cook and Kimberly Kopko
    To Spank or Not to Spank: Why Spanking Should Be Discouraged By Eliza Cook and Kimberly Kopko Spanking—hitting a child on the bottom with an open hand—is a common discipline approach used for children in the U.S. Most parents who spank believe that spanking will teach their children what is right and wrong; however, recent research finds that spanking should be discouraged as a discipline strategy. This fact sheet highlights reasons to eliminate spanking as a disciplinary tool, as well as other strategies parents can use instead of spanking. All suggestions are adopted from research in a recent publication, “Spanking and Child Development: We Know Enough Now to Stop Hitting Our Children” by Elizabeth Gershoff (2013). Why spanking should be discouraged: Spanking sends mixed messages. Many children report feelings of fear, anger, and sadness after being spanked. It can be very frightening and confusing for a child to be hit by a parent whom they love and depend on. Even if after spanking their child, a parent calmly explains the reasons why a child should act a certain way, it will be difficult for the child to listen and internalize the explanation because they will also be feeling frightened and distressed. Spanking teaches the wrong message. Children cannot learn through spanking alone why their behavior was incorrect. In fact, spanking teaches children to behave only when the threat of physical punishment is present. Once the threat of physical punishment is gone, children may feel little motivation to behave appropriately. Because there are many times when children are away from parents that require appropriate behavior, such as school or in after school activities, this can be very problematic.
    [Show full text]
  • Punishment on Trial √ Feel Guilty When You Punish Your Child for Some Misbehavior, but Have Ennio Been Told That Such Is Bad Parenting?
    PunishmentPunishment onon TrialTrial Cipani PunishmentPunishment onon TrialTrial Do you: √ believe that extreme child misbehaviors necessitate physical punishment? √ equate spanking with punishment? √ believe punishment does not work for your child? √ hear from professionals that punishing children for misbehavior is abusive and doesn’t even work? Punishment on Trial Punishment on √ feel guilty when you punish your child for some misbehavior, but have Ennio been told that such is bad parenting? If you answered “yes” to one or more of the above questions, this book may Cipani be just the definitive resource you need. Punishment is a controversial topic that parents face daily: To use or not to use? Professionals, parents, and teachers need answers that are based on factual information. This book, Punishment on Trial, provides that source. Effective punishment can take many forms, most of which do not involve physical punishment. This book brings a blend of science, clinical experience, and logic to a discussion of the efficacy of punishment for child behavior problems. Dr. Cipani is a licensed psychologist with over 25 years of experience working with children and adults. He is the author of numerous books on child behavior, and is a full professor in clinical psychology at Alliant International University in Fresno, California. 52495 Context Press $24.95 9 781878 978516 1-878978-51-9 A Resource Guide to Child Discipline i Punishment on Trial ii iii Punishment on Trial Ennio Cipani Alliant International University CONTEXT PRESS Reno, Nevada iv ________________________________________________________________________ Punishment on Trial Paperback pp. 137 Distributed by New Harbinger Publications, Inc. ________________________________________________________________________ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cipani, Ennio.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigations of Homeschooling Families: by Dewitt T
    Child Protective Services Investigations of Homeschooling Families: by Dewitt T. Black, III Are You Next? Senior Counsel Whereas HSLDA records indicate a 25% increase in the According to data collected by the U.S. investigation of our member families during the two-year Department of Health and Human Services period between 2009 and 2011, reports to CPS for the gen- (HHS), a total of 2.8 million referrals concern- eral population increased by only 17% during the ten-year ing approximately 5 million children were period between 2000 and 2010. What is obvious is that CPS made to child protective services (CPS) agen- investigations of homeschooling families are increasing at a rate much higher than for the general population. cies in 2000. Of the investigations conducted, only 28% were substantiated as child abuse The fact that the vast majority of hotline reports to CPS are or neglect. The remaining 72% were placed later deemed unwarranted is little comfort to the nearly 2 in categories not warranting any legal action million families who each year experience the trauma of being against the alleged perpetrators. investigated by social workers for allegedly abusing or neglect- ing their children. A parent’s worst fear is that her children Ten years later in 2010, the most recent year with available will be taken away by a social worker and placed in a stranger’s data, CPS received an estimated 3.3 million referrals involv- home, and social workers readily use this threat to coerce ing the alleged maltreatment of approximately 5.9 million families into cooperating with an investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Corporal Punishment Child Abuse?
    St. Catherine University SOPHIA Master of Social Work Clinical Research Papers School of Social Work 5-2017 Crossing the Line: Is Corporal Punishment Child Abuse? Jade R. Wallat St. Catherine University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers Part of the Social Work Commons Recommended Citation Wallat, Jade R.. (2017). Crossing the Line: Is Corporal Punishment Child Abuse?. Retrieved from Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website: https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/806 This Clinical research paper is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Social Work at SOPHIA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Social Work Clinical Research Papers by an authorized administrator of SOPHIA. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CROSSING THE LINE: IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CHILD ABUSE? Crossing the Line: Is Corporal Punishment Child Abuse? Submitted by Jade R. Wallat May 2017 MSW Clinical Research Paper School of Social Work St. Catherine University & University of St. Thomas St. Paul, Minnesota Committee Members: Dr. Lance Peterson (Chair) Jaime Robertson MSW, LSW The Clinical Research Project is a graduation requirement for MSW students at St. Catherine University/University of St. Thomas School of Social Work in St. Paul, Minnesota and is conducted within a nine-month time frame to demonstrate facility with basic social research methods. Students must independently conceptualize a research problem, formulate a research design that is approved by a research committee and the university Institutional Review Board, implement the project, and publicly present the findings of the study. This project is neither a Master’s thesis nor a dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Six Week Parenting Program for Child Compliance
    JEIBI Volume 2, Issue No. 1, Winter, 2005 A Six Week Parenting Program For Child Compliance Ennio Cipani, Ph.D. Cipani & Associates Child compliance is an important skill for young children to develop. It is often the focus of intervention efforts. This paper presents a six week program for professionals to use in parent training. At each week, new parenting skills are taught and utilized in real life child compliance situations. Data collection is built into the six-week program. For assistance to professionals and parents, the article presents the manual in its entirety for use. Keywords: Parent training, manual, child compliance, six week program, behavioral procedures. Compliance problems in young children are often at the heart of many parent-child difficulties. It is an area where effective treatments are available (Van Hasselt, Sisson, & Aach, 1987). Parent training procedures based on a behavioral approach incorporating antecedent and consequent components provide an empirical evidence-base for users (Cipani, 2004; Issac, 1982; O’Dell, 1974). This parent-training manual lays out a step-by-step plan for developing key skills in parents for compliance situations. Professionals can use the manual in individual parent training efforts as well as group training formats that span a six-week (or longer period). If used individually, it can be tailored to fit the individual client needs and may require more or less time than six weeks. It is recommended that the skills taught should be kept in their current sequence. A child’s compliance to simple parental commands is an important skill to develop. Isn’t life more harmonious when children put their back packs up without constant reminding? What about living with children who fail to respond to your requests, time and time again? Is a child’s failure to comply a satisfying state of affairs? Which family would you like to be “parent for a week”: Ozzie & Harriet Nelson or the Simpson’s? While you may laugh more at Bart, you certainly hope he is your neighbor’s child, and not yours.
    [Show full text]
  • Position Statement on Physical/Corporal Punishment [This Position Statement Replaces Apsaa’S 2013 Position Statement on Physical/Corporal Punishment]
    Position Statement on Physical/Corporal Punishment [This position statement replaces APsaA’s 2013 position statement on Physical/Corporal Punishment] The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) condemns the use of physical punishment (corporal punishment) in the discipline of children and recommends alternative methods that enhance children's capacities to develop healthy emotional lives, tolerate frustration, regulate internal tensions, and behave in socially acceptable ways. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, Atlanta, GA) has now formally come out with policy asserting that physical punishment is child abuse (p. 8) and that it should be prohibited (p. 46)(Fortson et al, 2016). This stance is in response to consistent data showing physical punishment to be associated with increased violence and emotional disorders (Durrant and Ensom, 2012; Straus et al, 2013; Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). The USA has no federal law prohibiting physical punishment. There are still 19 states which permit physical punishment in schools. All this is in contrast to the international response to these data on physical punishment—49 countries have banned physical punishment in all settings, and over 100 countries have banned it in schools. APsaA identifies and advocates for three crucial interventions for the prevention of physical punishment of children: 1. Education about the psychological problems caused by physical punishment and about alternative approaches to discipline. Educational efforts should be directed towards parents, caregivers, educators, clergy, legislators and the general public. 2. Legislation to protect all children from physical punishment and to aid parents at risk. 3. Research about alternative methods of disciplining and managing children and about the best ways to communicate these methods to parents, educators and caregivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporal Punishment: an Analysis of the Constitutionality of Domestic Corporal Punishment
    University at Albany, State University of New York Scholars Archive Political Science Honors College 5-2014 Corporal Punishment: An Analysis of the Constitutionality of Domestic Corporal Punishment Brian Junquera University at Albany, State University of New York Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/honorscollege_pos Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Junquera, Brian, "Corporal Punishment: An Analysis of the Constitutionality of Domestic Corporal Punishment" (2014). Political Science. 18. https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/honorscollege_pos/18 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at Scholars Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science by an authorized administrator of Scholars Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Corporal Punishment : An Analysis of the Constitutionality of Domestic Corporal Punishment Abstract: As contemporary society has increasingly recognized the independent rights of children, the acceptability of parental corporal punishment has been increasingly questioned. I argue that in light of modern research on the negative effects of corporal punishment, the New York law that sanctions parental corporal punishment is unconstitutional. In order to make this argument, the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment protection against “cruel and unusual punishment” is analyzed. Factors used by the Court to determine whether a punishment is “cruel and unusual” are assessed in relation to corporal punishment. Brian Junquera Department of Political Science Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany, SUNY Undergraduate Honors Thesis Faculty Adviser: Victor Asal, PhD. Junquera 2 Introduction In 2008 the Supreme Court of Minnesota heard a case involving parental use of corporal punishment in the home.
    [Show full text]