No, it would not, actually. Depending on the circumstances, prison wardens/guards are authorized to use brute force with prisoners. Force that would be considered abusive if a parent used it against a child.
And, the fact remains that wardens are paid by the govt to parent, so to speak. That means the govt makes the decisions as to what is and is not appropriate.
And as I mentioned before, we are fortunate that our laws reflect the fact that parents are considered the best people to decide how our children are raised, including disciplined. How would anyone here feel if the govt said parents HAD to spank, or could not send our kids to church, or could not homeschool or could not use time out? We do not leave it up to our govt to decide for our children like the prisoners in their care.
It's always interesting, in these debates, that people who are against spanking don't just want to make that choice for themselves...they want to make that decision every parent. I have yet to hear one person who doesn't think spanking is abuse state that their opinion should apply to all parents, that all parents should have to use spanking as a form of discipline.
(FWIW, I am not defending the father in the OPs story. I wasn't there, it could have been abuse for all I know. Just responding to general statements being made here)
I don't know too much about prisons, but I was under the assumption that force can only be used in extreme circumstances--to break up a fight say. Not because a prisoner refuses to stop crying or won't clean up their toys or something. Currently parents can legally hit their children for any reason or no reason at all; I have a hard time believing prison wardens have anything near that kind of authority.
As for the bolded part, I think the way parents feel when the government makes laws about how to raise children totally depends on what the government's motivations are and what is in the best interest of children. I have never, ever heard anyone complain about laws that say that parents are not allowed to have sex with their pre-schoolers, or cannot sell their children into slavery, or cannot pimp out their child, or cannot cook their child for dinner. Those laws certainly do take some decisions out of parents hands, but nobody (well maybe except absolute nutcases) would ever object to them. Why? Because they don't think parents have any right to do those things to their children. No sane person thinks that parents should be the
sole decision makers of how children are raised, because some parents are nutcases. We have all accepted that there are many situations in which the government absolutely should tell parents "No, you cannot do that" (molest your child) and "Yes, you must do this" (feed your child).
That said, I do understand what you are saying about there being a very important interest in not allowing the government too much say in how parents raise children. The government needs to protect children's humans rights and safeguard their physical/emotional welfare when parents do not. The government does not need to dictate the details of how children should be raised. I completely understand that spanking is nothing like the examples I gave above when the government really does need to be involved.
My worry, though, is that the argument given against the government getting involved in parental decisions about children is the very same argument that was used in the past to justify the government staying out of the marriage relationship/bed. It was argued that the government was completely overstepping its bounds by prosecuting men for hitting or raping their wives. It was not until 1993 that it became illegal in all 50 states to rape your wife
. 60 years ago laws saying a man can't hit his wife or force her to have sex would have seemed like the government meddling where it didn't belong and violating a husband's rights. Today the argument that such laws violate a husband's rights are absolutely ridiculous and obviously sexist--it's just obvious to us that one does not have the right to hit or force sex upon one's wife. (Some people similarly feel it to be absolutely obvious that no one has the right to hit a child.)
It seems to me that the very same arguments and responses are at work in the issue of parents using violence against children. My grandmother (growing up during the depression) was beaten--and I mean thrown on the ground, kicked, punched, made to bleed--and that was acceptable at that time. Other people knew what my great-grandmother was doing to her children and no one did anything because the attitude was "parent's decisions about how to raise their children should not be interfered with." By the time of my parents generation, I think things had changed. Such totally obvious abuse probably couldn't have been so easily ignored; but whipping a kid with a stick or belt was still perfectly acceptable because "parents decisions about how to raise their children should not be interfered with". Now it seems there is mostly a consensus that it isn't okay to hit children with a belt or stick either, but hitting with a hand can be ignored. So the next step in the pattern would be to get to the point where hitting with a hand is not okay either. My guess is that within the next two generations or so we will get there and when my child is my age, she will think about spanking the way I think about beating with a belt. At least, that seems to be the progression we are heading for.
I don't see why it's surprising that people who think spanking is abuse want it completely banned while people who think spanking is an acceptable discipline method think people should get to choose whether to spank. Well of course anyone who thinks spanking is abuse want it banned. What would you think of a person who said, "Well I think parents having sex with their children is horrible and abusive, but you know, that's just my opinion. Some people think it's what's best for their child and they should be free to make that choice." (Of course, I know spanking is not at all comparable to pedophilia. But the point is *IF* one thinks spanking is truly abusive, then of course they are going to want it to be illegal just like all other forms of child abuse are.) And actually, there are some posters who, while not advocating that spanking be mandated, do seem to be blaming non-spankers for causing the downfall of our country.
I don't advocate making spanking illegal. I didn't read all of the thread, but in skimming I didn't see anyone else advocate making it illegal but maybe some people did. I thought mostly people were just saying they think it shouldn't be done because it's bad. I don't personally think that spanking should be illegal at this point. (Can't say I'd mourn if it were, but I don't support it.) I think the social norms around the acceptable ways to discipline children are, in some sense, more important than the law. Laws didn't cause the change from the 1950s when whipping with a belt was totally normal, to today when it seems quite rare and looked down upon--changes in social norms caused that change. I suspect those norms will keep changing.
Maybe it won't turn out that way. Maybe I'm wrong and there's nothing bad about spanking. Maybe the "spare the rod, spoil the child" people are right and social science will demonstrate that in fact my great-grandmother had it right after all. Hey, she may have tied her children up and beat them til they bled, but she raised 8 upstanding citizens with no noticeable emotional or physical problems so it couldn't have been too bad (that seems to be the argument many posters are making when the say "I/my husband/my kids were spanked and we turned out fine"). I guess we'll find out in the next 20 or 30 years.
. I meant to say, rather, that inasmuch as we have a system that prevents beating, killing, and raping of children by parents we have given up on the idea that parents should be the sole decision makers of how children are raised. (If parents were in fact the sole decision makers, then there would be no system that stops parents from molesting their children.) I don't think any sane person would say that the government should not have authority to prevent beating, killing, sexual abuse, etc. of children--that's was what I meant. (Even on the DIS where it seems there's someone who will defend just about any crazy position one can think of, I highly doubt anyone thinks this...I hope 
!).
Maybe the mom had meds, or bills, or private stuff she didn't want all over the ofc. My kids didn't play with my purse. I keep too many things in there that I need. (As well as meds, including an epipen.) there isn't anything wrong with a mom having some privacy in life.
I am not saying that when they get home, Lydia's new toy is the Mom's purse BUT in times like this when looking/playing in the purse will keep Lydia busy AND quiet..I still see NO HARM in it.
