There is no evidence to suggest that banning corporal punishment/smacking will have any positive effect on reducing maltreament/deaths.

<Rant on>
By that logic I'm surprised you support any criminal laws, Ron, seeing as even though we're been prosecuting people for murder for centuries and yet people stubbornly keep killing each other! Every day large numbers of people flagrantly exceed the speed limit, cheat on their taxes, and covert their neighbour's wives; heck, there's an average of a murder every three days in this country. Given all this we might as well have no laws, because people will just go around breaking them, making a solemn mockery of the justice system!

No, better to have complete anarchy, because then at least we aren't fooling ourselves.
</Rant off>

Personally, I hope making violence against children unacceptable in law will slowly filter it's way by osmosis such that people stop think it is a valid way of solving their parenting problems. Eventually it will be like drunk driving - socially unacceptable. And like drunk driving there will be a hard core of people who just don't get the message that it's wrong - and that's what jail is for.

So, you have no evidence to support this? Given the relatively few kids that are seriously hurt or killed at home, I suspect your theory will never fly.

eh? I was just suggesting a re-wording of your post so it wasn't completely bananas, son. I don't think it really qualifies as a fully-fledged theory I am advancing. Perhaps we should go back to my original post and argue from that:

"... I'll bet the people who beat them started with smacking and escalated from there when they didn't get the result they thought they should get."

Do you expect us to believe that they didn't start with smacking? That they didn't believe that violence was the appropriate and most effective way to make children behave the way they want them to? Or do you just believe that people who beat and/or kill their children are psychopaths and sadists, whose behaviour is inexplicable?

So smacking is analogous to cannabis. Smoking the latter eventually leads to hard drugs, the former to beatings and eventually manslaughter/murder. Hmmmm.

I think you should really re-word this to make it more sensible; my suggestions are in italics -

"So smacking is analogous to cannabis. Smoking the latter may eventually lead to hard drugs, the former may lead to beatings and possibly eventually manslaughter/murder."

I certainly wasn't suggesting that smacking always led to extreme violence or death, or even often. And just about everyone I know who has smoked cannabis have never tried heroin or cocaine. But you are right to point out that correlation is not the end of an argument - but it's a bloody good place to do some more research.

Actually I think using drugs as an analogy - taking drugs is inherently risky, as you may misjudge the dose you are taking, or the dose you take may be of uncertain strength, leading to overdose. Likewise, when inflicting violence there is an inherent risk, firstly of doing more damage than you intended, and secondly of losing control in the heat of the moment.

But then the key difference between illegal drugs and hitting your kids is that with the former I am only risking my own health and well-being; with the latter you are risking someone else's.

I shall have to remedy my pronunciation of Gore immediately.

I note that the two children recently admitted to Starhip hospital, who were both allegedly abused, don't appear to have received their injuries from being smacked.

True, but I'll bet the people who beat them started with smacking and escalated from there when they didn't get the result they thought they should get.

Well, it's true they don't have the right to vote, or drink in pubs, or drink at home, or have sex, or go to war, or gamble, or drive a car, or smoke, or see r18 movies, be left home alone, etc, etc. Is that what you meant?

No, probably here we're referring to the rights the rest of us take for granted - you know, not to have the crap beaten out of us by thugs and sadists. Or is that a privilage rather than a right?

Since when have "childrens' rights" been "nonsense" anyway?

I think the technical term for children (and wives) in fundamentalist discourse is "chattels". And no right-thinking man would give to rights to a chattel would they?

Unless you're a goddamn, lily-livered, pot-smoking commie ...