Mike,
> To clarify, a third of those cases reported were NOT investigated. So
> about HALF of all cases investigated turned out to have a victim of child
> abuse. In my opinion, probably a very large % of the other half turned
> out to be a situation where they couldn't provide evidence of abuse. How
> do you prove that a child is being verbally abused everyday without
> witnessing it? It would be very hard to investigate these types of cases
> without intruding on the rights of the parents.
just because a full investigation isn't warranted, doesn't mean they
don't spend any time on them - they must make at least a cursory
investigation and document the process. A lot of time is still
wasted.
Also, only 7 percent of confirmed cases were emotionally abused (I
assume that means verbal) - which is off topic anyway. 60% were
neglect, which is also off topic. That leaves less than a third being
physical abuse which is what we're talking about. So, of the 800k,
only around 260k were physical abuse.
> > I would be interested in knowing how many of those frivolous cases
> > were from 'concerned citizens' who witnessed a spanking.
>
> I figured that is why you wanted the link! :) I can imagine some of those
> spanking cases actually are child abuse though.
some maybe. most not, and I'm guessing they make up the lion's share
of the non-malicious accusation cases thrown out.
> What if the parent just
> has absolutely no parenting skills and is very impatient, so they spank
> their child for every little thing they do wrong (such as not eating
> dinner, crying, etc.)? Would you consider that child abuse? Could they
> prove it to be child abuse? Probably not.
The situation you describe is so unrealistic, as to be comical.
First of all, a child that is spanked constantly will be so defeated
that he will rarely misbehave in public. I've seen these types of
kids, and they are so quite and 'polite' for fear of being struck,
that outsiders will rarely see them act up.
Second, If a parent is going to spank for every little thing, either
one of two things is happening. they aren't spanking them hard enough
to hurt, or the child would be obviously and visibly abused, and act
more like the child above.
Abused children who aren't obviously abused typically have abusers who
are very very careful to not let anyone see them do it and to hide the
bruises.
If a 'concerned citizen' saw a public spanking and reported it,
they're seeing only a snapshot of the life of that child and making a
judgement, and wasting caseworkers time that could be used on more
important cases.
My point is there are a ton of people out there who see a quick swat
on an unruly kid, and are so shocked and dismayed due to their own
irrational biases against the practice that they over-react.
Do you see what I mean?
Rick
