Speaking of Spanking ...

The recent proposal by a California lawmaker to make spanking a small child a crime punishable by jail time or a fine has once again stirred up people on both sides of the issue. I'm not going to debate the merits or flaws of this particular law. I just want to share the reaction I have whenever one of these pro or con spanking proposals pops up: why do we assume that hitting a child is lawful?

Aren't there already laws against assault and corporal punishment? Does anyone have the right to smack their neighbor or co-worker? If a stranger behaves rudely toward me, or does something that displeases me, am I allowed to take them upside the head? I don't think I am. We can't use corporal punishment on prisoners, and we have to have federal debates to even consider use of force against enemies captured on the battlefield. But kids? Sure -- smack 'em. Somehow, when we consider the laws against violence toward each other, we don't assume that they also prohibit violence against young people. Are they not people, too?

The pro-spanking crowd will tell you that its a different situation, that you can't always reason with a young child and sometimes you have to use a little physical force to get your point across. They generally justify it in the name of safety -- what if your kid runs into the street or tries to touch a hot stove? Personally, I think pulling them away does more to protect their safety than hitting them does, and that level of physical intervention is even justifiable between adults. What is not justifiable between adults is hitting each other to make a point -- only young people are exempted from this human courtesy.

In a world where human beings begin their life with physical force defining right and wrong, are we really surprised when we have a problem with bullies in schools?