hitting another, even mildly, is legally the crime of assault.
Killarney,
That is correct if it is an assault. We're not talking about assault though, are we ? We're talking about discipline & the lack of it & how to dish it out.
Even in the animal world discipline is the order of the day. You can not & definitely must not object to discipline. If you do you're going against nature itself.
Defence is another thing. You should not object to defence. That too is against nature. What you should do but you don't is to strongly object to violence & assault.
If you're incapable of differentiating between all of these then you should not be a parent or a teacher or an employer. In fact you should be prevented from having a say over others.

R0bert

I wonder if you would be as willing to defend your paddy wagon logic if someone twice your size came after you with a wooden implement.

What is it you can't understand Killarney?

The whole point of mild corporal punishment is to induce just enough fear of punishment in the recipient, that they will start to think.

The objective is to have them realise that the application of a little self discipline, before committing the "crime", & refraining, will actually prevent the application of discipline by your parents/government, after the "crime".

It is this lack of reason to have to apply self discipline in so many today that has caused the dreadful increase in crime in the last 40 years.

As snake said, I'll bet that Singaporean will apply quite a lot of self discipline, before drink driving again. Just think, it might even be you, or someone you love who is saved from injury, or death, by those few strokes of the cane, extreme as they may have been.

I have no doubt that such punishment applied in Oz, with compulsory viewing of videos of it displayed in senior class rooms in all schools, would go a very long way in curbing the loutish drunken behaviour seen in our streets by both sexes today.

2 or more police officers armed with gun's and tasers as well as some training in unarmed fighting.

The police have a responsibility to use both within boundaries and when less violent means have failed. Most act responsibly and occasionally some won't.

Most parents act responsibly and a small number won't.

I have a choice regardless of how fair I think it is at the time, resist and escalate or comply and try and sort the mess out afterwards. That's the bit I can control and a useful lesson for all to learn.

Most but not all of those hurt by police are hurt while resisting police. There are exceptions but they are a massive minority and not a reason to disarm all police.

Using the wooden spoon analogy it should be legitimate to break into a police station and destroy all the guns and tasers so that they can never be part of the consequence for later bad choices on my part.

R0bert

"The point of the article is that, in every other context, hitting another, even mildly, is legally the crime of assault."

In almost every other context restraining someone against their will is legally deprevation of liberty.

In almost every other context taking someones posessions from them for a period without their consent is theft.

In almost every other circumstance the act of removing part of someones clothes without consent because you know they need to have their bottom wiped would constitute sexual assault.

In almost every other circumstance controlling what foods someone has access to would be considered a form of abuse.

In almost every other cirumstance forcing someone to attend a workplace that they didn't like (in this case school) would be a form of abuse.

In almost every other circumstance the actions which might warrant a smack could lead to major family upheaval, loss of a job, police involvment and a possible criminal trial depending on the situation.

The correlation of smacking with assault used to make the point has some disturbing implications if applied elsewhere.

Anybody up for a criminal charge if they insist that a child sit in the thinking corner for a while or take away a favorite toy?

R0bert

Pericles,

When did a smack suddenly become a "beating"? We are getting a bit 'precious' here, aren't we? Political correctness run rampant?

Sure, family violence can often lead to a tendency towards, or a perpetuation of violent behaviour, and that is definitely NEVER a good thing. (Just as all sorts of errant behaviour may be copied - drunkeness, drug abuse, disrespect for others, bigotry, etc). But, giving a kid a smack (NOT A BEATING!) for hitting a sibling or for whacking the family dog with a stick or for attempting to drown the cat, or to teach them not to reach for saucepans on the stove - this is unacceptable? Where a simple lesson, such as a smack on the hand or the butt, can provide the necessary disuasion, where a logical discourse on the rights of others and animals will just produce puzzlement or humour - what's wrong with the simple lesson here?

People are so 'precious', accepting, and fearful these days - not wanting to get 'involved' - as exemplified by the news coverage of that kid lying in the street, after having been hit by a car, and people passing by, and not wanting to look, or to be 'involved'; or someone having an eplileptic seizure or heart attack, and passers-by not wanting to get 'involved'. Only one of the four 9/11 aircraft was diverted - because people don't want to take a chance, to face reality, to be a 'man', to get involved.

Someone is getting beaten up, we don't get involved; someone is destroying or defacing private or public property, we don't get involved; someone needs a smack in the mouth, we don't get involved. These days if you roughly pull someone back from the edge, you risk a charge of assault. How precious is just too precious for our own good?

Smack a kid? Boo, boo, bogeyman! Some in our midst beat their wives, commit honour killings, abuse children, commit crime, plot terrorism - but families, neighbours, community, stay silent. And we are taught not to get involved, to be just so 'precious'.