April 17, 2002
2:36 PM Subscribe
In one of the worst cases of child abuse in Canadian history, Tony and Marcia Dooley stand trial for the second-degree murder of Tony's son Randall, who was 6 at the time that he was killed.
The autopsy found that he had 14 broken ribs, a lacerated liver and multiple head wounds. The coroner has said that the wounds inflicted are consistent with being stomped on by an adult.
I don't understand how people like this can be allowed to have children in their custody. The case both saddens and sickens me, and (without starting a huge debate on the merits on capital punishment - that's old hat) sometimes makes me wish we were a little harder on our criminals up here in Canada.
The autopsy found that he had 14 broken ribs, a lacerated liver and multiple head wounds. The coroner has said that the wounds inflicted are consistent with being stomped on by an adult.
I don't understand how people like this can be allowed to have children in their custody. The case both saddens and sickens me, and (without starting a huge debate on the merits on capital punishment - that's old hat) sometimes makes me wish we were a little harder on our criminals up here in Canada.
We have strong requirements for adoption. The adoption process takes a long time. Yes, there's still people slipping through the cracks into the hands of bad parents, but all in all it's a Good Thing that we screen potential parents for their competency. We need to do the same thing for people wishing to have children of their own. If you're irresponsible, you lose your kids to better parents.
That may sound draconian, but I think the Dooley kid would agree with me.
posted by paddy at 2:44 PM on April 17, 2002
That may sound draconian, but I think the Dooley kid would agree with me.
posted by paddy at 2:44 PM on April 17, 2002
I agree with the screening, but the problem is who decides. And how the hell do you prevent people from having kids?
This is a problem we will have to live with unless we want to prevent people from having kids. The indecision of our time does lead to nasty situations.
posted by Settle at 2:51 PM on April 17, 2002
This is a problem we will have to live with unless we want to prevent people from having kids. The indecision of our time does lead to nasty situations.
posted by Settle at 2:51 PM on April 17, 2002
paddy : Your idea, while sounding like it does have merits, has just as many reasons against it. It is extremely hard to tell to what extent a child is telling you the truth. In all fairness, a little spanking never hurt to reinforce the point between right and wrong. Yet if a child was to complain to his teacher that he was spanked by his parents, would that be grounds to have the child taken away? Probably not.
In the case of Randall Dooley, it is plainly obvious to see that there was something terribly wrong, and the beatings went beyond a simple spanking to the rear side.
The goal ultimately is to prevent extreme cases like this one. The warning signs were all there. I just don't understand how nobody acted on them.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 3:02 PM on April 17, 2002
In the case of Randall Dooley, it is plainly obvious to see that there was something terribly wrong, and the beatings went beyond a simple spanking to the rear side.
The goal ultimately is to prevent extreme cases like this one. The warning signs were all there. I just don't understand how nobody acted on them.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 3:02 PM on April 17, 2002
Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene {free reg} has made a small career out of following some of the worst cases from beginning to the very end, often attending every day of an abuser's trial. They happen in the most unlikely places to the most unlikely people.
posted by dhartung at 3:08 PM on April 17, 2002
posted by dhartung at 3:08 PM on April 17, 2002
In all fairness, a little spanking never hurt to reinforce the point between right and wrong.
I don't think it's necessary, at all. My parents boast that never in my life have they ever laid a hand on me, and I turned out just fine. Of all the kids I've ever known, most of the off-the-wall types and "bad kids" had parents who I knew hit them from time to time, while the ones who were down to earth, well mannered and well behaved had calm, patient parents who found other ways to communicate with their kids.
posted by tomorama at 3:22 PM on April 17, 2002
I don't think it's necessary, at all. My parents boast that never in my life have they ever laid a hand on me, and I turned out just fine. Of all the kids I've ever known, most of the off-the-wall types and "bad kids" had parents who I knew hit them from time to time, while the ones who were down to earth, well mannered and well behaved had calm, patient parents who found other ways to communicate with their kids.
posted by tomorama at 3:22 PM on April 17, 2002
I've often thought there should be some kind of "qualification" scheme for prospective parents.
I can't imagine how it'd be administered, but something like the process that adopting parents go through. "can you support a child" "are you a stable family" etc.
It's everyones right to have kids, but it's every kids right to be treated well.
posted by selton at 3:49 PM on April 17, 2002
I can't imagine how it'd be administered, but something like the process that adopting parents go through. "can you support a child" "are you a stable family" etc.
It's everyones right to have kids, but it's every kids right to be treated well.
posted by selton at 3:49 PM on April 17, 2002
We talk about the possible big brother implications of digital music laws, but are iffy on the topic of giving a party or parties the authority to determine who has the right to procreate?
That'd be one giant leap towards a Brave New World. We are not God. Bad stuff happens when you play God.
posted by tomorama at 4:17 PM on April 17, 2002
That'd be one giant leap towards a Brave New World. We are not God. Bad stuff happens when you play God.
posted by tomorama at 4:17 PM on April 17, 2002
Well I can't understand why there are such strict guidelines for adopting parents and none what so ever for "natural" parents.
I've seen plenty of kids born into families that were obviously incapable of looking after them properly. (and I'm including myself and my "extended" family)
And those kids will have, on the whole, shitty lives. I'm not saying they'll be treated like these kids from the article, but they're not gonna have much going for them.
I'd be in favour of compulsory contraception, unless the parents can show the capability of raising a child properly.
posted by selton at 4:29 PM on April 17, 2002
I've seen plenty of kids born into families that were obviously incapable of looking after them properly. (and I'm including myself and my "extended" family)
And those kids will have, on the whole, shitty lives. I'm not saying they'll be treated like these kids from the article, but they're not gonna have much going for them.
I'd be in favour of compulsory contraception, unless the parents can show the capability of raising a child properly.
posted by selton at 4:29 PM on April 17, 2002
I don't understand how people like this can be allowed to have children in their custody. The case both saddens and sickens me, and (without starting a huge debate on the merits on capital punishment - that's old hat) sometimes makes me wish we were a little harder on our criminals up here in Canada.
Is this out of a desire for retribution or a belief in the deterrent value of stiffer punishments? If it is the latter I doubt it would make a difference. Marcia Dooley likely didn't work out the costs versus benifits before beating that poor kid and decide that the risk of the current murder/manslaughter punishments was worth it.
posted by srboisvert at 4:57 PM on April 17, 2002
Is this out of a desire for retribution or a belief in the deterrent value of stiffer punishments? If it is the latter I doubt it would make a difference. Marcia Dooley likely didn't work out the costs versus benifits before beating that poor kid and decide that the risk of the current murder/manslaughter punishments was worth it.
posted by srboisvert at 4:57 PM on April 17, 2002
dhartung. I'm glad you mentioned the Bob Greene
column[s] because that was the first thing that popped into my head as I read this. I can still remember the pictures of the children and parents to this day.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 5:14 PM on April 17, 2002
column[s] because that was the first thing that popped into my head as I read this. I can still remember the pictures of the children and parents to this day.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 5:14 PM on April 17, 2002
I'd be in favour of compulsory contraception, unless the parents can show the capability of raising a child properly.
That would be virtually impossible to regulate. Who is going to check up on everyone to make sure they are using contraception. Even if they are, it's not 100% effective. Another concern is how to show that capability and who makes the decision. I don't believe that adding stricter regulations is going to help anything. On the contrary, it will tend to limit the wrong people anyway.
I would rather have checks in place to watch for signs of abuse. If people had taken action when they realized what was happening this could have been avoided.
posted by jaden at 5:50 PM on April 17, 2002
That would be virtually impossible to regulate. Who is going to check up on everyone to make sure they are using contraception. Even if they are, it's not 100% effective. Another concern is how to show that capability and who makes the decision. I don't believe that adding stricter regulations is going to help anything. On the contrary, it will tend to limit the wrong people anyway.
I would rather have checks in place to watch for signs of abuse. If people had taken action when they realized what was happening this could have been avoided.
posted by jaden at 5:50 PM on April 17, 2002
isn't there some sci fi / futuristic story where everyone's temporarily snipped (or chemically snipped/ norplanted/ whatever) until they apply to have a kid? Would be fine with me.
tomorama, the difference is, what music we listens to affects no one but ourselves. Deciding to have kids affects those kids, who are recognized as having basic rights (limited, but basic) at birth. They are members of society and unlike ancient rome, not entirely subject to the rule of their fathers.
posted by mdn at 6:04 PM on April 17, 2002
tomorama, the difference is, what music we listens to affects no one but ourselves. Deciding to have kids affects those kids, who are recognized as having basic rights (limited, but basic) at birth. They are members of society and unlike ancient rome, not entirely subject to the rule of their fathers.
posted by mdn at 6:04 PM on April 17, 2002
But hey, if you're a moral relativist, this isn't really that bad, or bad at all, because "everything is subjective", and there isn't such a thing as moral absolutism.
posted by aaronshaf at 6:04 PM on April 17, 2002
posted by aaronshaf at 6:04 PM on April 17, 2002
I'm trying to imagine an easier way to commit genocide than requiring the government's permission to reproduce, but I'm not getting anywhere.
posted by NortonDC at 6:09 PM on April 17, 2002
posted by NortonDC at 6:09 PM on April 17, 2002
Sometimes the only thing standing between a child being murdered this way and them being taken into relative safety by social services is ONE ADULT who is willing to take a risk. Why those who investigated the previous abuse and let it go is mind-boggling, yet happens all the time in the US, because of the criteria for determining whether the abuse is "real", or often because a worker doesn't want to be sued later for accusing someone of a abuse and then being found innocent of any mistreatment. It sickens me to say this but it takes courage on an adult's part to say, "You know what? I don't care what the rules are, this kid's going to get killed, and I'm not going to let that happen." Because by that point, the kid is so broken that it's almost impossible for them to stand up for themselves enough to solicit aid.
Another reason abuse like this will be "invisible" -- if the other children in the family are "fine." But in many situations there will be a "scapegoat", one child who bears the brunt of the abuse, and who is held up as an example to the other children. (e.g., "See what'll happen to you if you do that?") If a worker goes in and sees relatively healthy kids, they may not look any further.
I do not support capital punishment on the whole, but I swear, for things like this, I support long-term medieval capital punishment.
posted by ltracey at 6:27 PM on April 17, 2002
Another reason abuse like this will be "invisible" -- if the other children in the family are "fine." But in many situations there will be a "scapegoat", one child who bears the brunt of the abuse, and who is held up as an example to the other children. (e.g., "See what'll happen to you if you do that?") If a worker goes in and sees relatively healthy kids, they may not look any further.
I do not support capital punishment on the whole, but I swear, for things like this, I support long-term medieval capital punishment.
posted by ltracey at 6:27 PM on April 17, 2002
tomorama, the difference is, what music we listens to affects no one but ourselves. Deciding to have kids affects those kids, who are recognized as having basic rights (limited, but basic) at birth. They are members of society and unlike ancient rome, not entirely subject to the rule of their fathers.
I think I understand what you're trying to say but I'm not entirely sure.
But hey, if you're a moral relativist, this isn't really that bad, or bad at all, because "everything is subjective", and there isn't such a thing as moral absolutism.
Heh. Anybody who's listened to the things I've had to say in the past 2 years on MeFi could safely bet that I'm not on the side of moral subjectivism, and what's more, I'm a likely person to throw out C.S. Lewis quotes. I think he's a great writer, thinker and theologian. If there's one good thing about my school, it's that it got me to read one of his books.
And again, yeah, a world where some people decide which other people are allowed to have children is a scary world. Screening adoption parents is one thing, forced contraception is a whoooole 'nother ballpark.
posted by tomorama at 6:28 PM on April 17, 2002
I think I understand what you're trying to say but I'm not entirely sure.
But hey, if you're a moral relativist, this isn't really that bad, or bad at all, because "everything is subjective", and there isn't such a thing as moral absolutism.
Heh. Anybody who's listened to the things I've had to say in the past 2 years on MeFi could safely bet that I'm not on the side of moral subjectivism, and what's more, I'm a likely person to throw out C.S. Lewis quotes. I think he's a great writer, thinker and theologian. If there's one good thing about my school, it's that it got me to read one of his books.
And again, yeah, a world where some people decide which other people are allowed to have children is a scary world. Screening adoption parents is one thing, forced contraception is a whoooole 'nother ballpark.
posted by tomorama at 6:28 PM on April 17, 2002
I don't think it's necessary, at all. My parents boast that never in my life have they ever laid a hand on me, and I turned out just fine. Of all the kids I've ever known, most of the off-the-wall types and "bad kids" had parents who I knew hit them from time to time, while the ones who were down to earth, well mannered and well behaved had calm, patient parents who found other ways to communicate with their kids.
Just a point to clarify: it is not the spanking that has made "bad kids", it is the inconsistency in punishment. Spankings are not beatings or abuse; an argument can be made that consistent spanking when deemed appropriate (usually defiant disobedience) will produce a child who is no more violent or "bad" than a child who never has a hand laid on him. The key is consistency.
[climbs off of psych/soapbox]
posted by somethingotherthan at 7:46 PM on April 17, 2002
Just a point to clarify: it is not the spanking that has made "bad kids", it is the inconsistency in punishment. Spankings are not beatings or abuse; an argument can be made that consistent spanking when deemed appropriate (usually defiant disobedience) will produce a child who is no more violent or "bad" than a child who never has a hand laid on him. The key is consistency.
[climbs off of psych/soapbox]
posted by somethingotherthan at 7:46 PM on April 17, 2002
But hey, if you're a moral relativist, this isn't really that bad, or bad at all, because "everything is subjective", and there isn't such a thing as moral absolutism.
nothing like using the horrific murder of a little boy as a platform for trumpeting your philosophical beliefs. i'm sure this boy's aunt would be pleased to know that his gruesome death is useful to you in discrediting moral relativism.
way to discredit your own position.
posted by boltman at 8:00 PM on April 17, 2002
nothing like using the horrific murder of a little boy as a platform for trumpeting your philosophical beliefs. i'm sure this boy's aunt would be pleased to know that his gruesome death is useful to you in discrediting moral relativism.
way to discredit your own position.
posted by boltman at 8:00 PM on April 17, 2002
I tried to read the article, but couldn't finish it. It's just sickening.
I'm an adoptive parent. Is the process of adoption is expensive and intrusive? You bet. And I've been known to comment that if "bio" parents had to go through the same process, school crowding would no longer be an issue.
But state control of reproduction? No way. Behavior is a result of how people are treated. If you treat people like farm animals, that's most likely how they're going to behave. They control reproduction in China, and as a result, female children are often abandoned, since most families want at least one of their two state-sanctioned kids to be a boy.
The best prevention of child abuse may be extended treatment and counseling for the victims. Most abusers were themselves abused. You have to break the cycle.
posted by groundhog at 8:24 PM on April 17, 2002
I'm an adoptive parent. Is the process of adoption is expensive and intrusive? You bet. And I've been known to comment that if "bio" parents had to go through the same process, school crowding would no longer be an issue.
But state control of reproduction? No way. Behavior is a result of how people are treated. If you treat people like farm animals, that's most likely how they're going to behave. They control reproduction in China, and as a result, female children are often abandoned, since most families want at least one of their two state-sanctioned kids to be a boy.
The best prevention of child abuse may be extended treatment and counseling for the victims. Most abusers were themselves abused. You have to break the cycle.
posted by groundhog at 8:24 PM on April 17, 2002
Ye gods, what an incredibly horrid story. I was in tears when I reached the end. That poor, poor baby. And yes, there was that vigilante spark in my soul, that just for a moment, relished the thought of hanging both parents by the neck until dead. To paraphrase Judge Roy Bean, some people just need killin'.
Selton, re your comment: I'd be in favour of compulsory contraception, unless the parents can show the capability of raising a child properly.
Considering the only methods of contraception that are 100% reversible are medications taken by women...I'd say that's a really easy position for someone with a penis to take...but those of us with uteruses would just as soon keep the government out of our reproductive systems, if you don't mind.
(Yes, I am making the assumption that you're a man...no women who's had to deal with the side effects and contraindictions of various birth control methods could possibly have made that statement.)
I understand, and even share your outrage...but eugenics is not the way to solve the problem.
posted by dejah420 at 9:27 PM on April 17, 2002
Selton, re your comment: I'd be in favour of compulsory contraception, unless the parents can show the capability of raising a child properly.
Considering the only methods of contraception that are 100% reversible are medications taken by women...I'd say that's a really easy position for someone with a penis to take...but those of us with uteruses would just as soon keep the government out of our reproductive systems, if you don't mind.
(Yes, I am making the assumption that you're a man...no women who's had to deal with the side effects and contraindictions of various birth control methods could possibly have made that statement.)
I understand, and even share your outrage...but eugenics is not the way to solve the problem.
posted by dejah420 at 9:27 PM on April 17, 2002
I think I understand what you're trying to say but I'm not entirely sure.
I mean having a kid isn't just about your right to privacy etc - it's about the kid's right to a decent life. In ancient rome, children could be killed by their fathers without retribution, even after the children were grown citizens. But in modern democracies, children are considered rights bearing members of society from the beginning.
And again, yeah, a world where some people decide which other people are allowed to have children is a scary world. Screening adoption parents is one thing, forced contraception is a whoooole 'nother ballpark.
But why? Isn't it just because we're used to having that be part of our life? What's the real difference? If adoption is so carefully overseen, why can absolutely anyone bring a child into the world? I'm definitely pulling a bit of the devil's advocate on this point, but I think it's an interesting question.
Considering the only methods of contraception that are 100% reversible are medications taken by women..
Condoms are pretty reversible. And the reversibility of vasectomies is a high percentage, at least.
but those of us with uteruses would just as soon keep the government out of our reproductive systems, if you don't mind.
I can see that there is a lot of room for misuse, for pre-emptive genocide / eugenics type issues, but what I was thinking was like getting a driver's license. Basically anyone could get one after passing a simple test, very few people turned down - mostly just a matter of a person knowing they want a child enough to bother going to apply. If we had to turn on our fertility instead of turn it off, I think there would be far fewer unintended & unwanted births. I see how unromantic this is, and I'm sure half of us would never have existed if such things were in place, but when you read stories like this, you reach for practical solutions...
posted by mdn at 10:18 PM on April 17, 2002
I mean having a kid isn't just about your right to privacy etc - it's about the kid's right to a decent life. In ancient rome, children could be killed by their fathers without retribution, even after the children were grown citizens. But in modern democracies, children are considered rights bearing members of society from the beginning.
And again, yeah, a world where some people decide which other people are allowed to have children is a scary world. Screening adoption parents is one thing, forced contraception is a whoooole 'nother ballpark.
But why? Isn't it just because we're used to having that be part of our life? What's the real difference? If adoption is so carefully overseen, why can absolutely anyone bring a child into the world? I'm definitely pulling a bit of the devil's advocate on this point, but I think it's an interesting question.
Considering the only methods of contraception that are 100% reversible are medications taken by women..
Condoms are pretty reversible. And the reversibility of vasectomies is a high percentage, at least.
but those of us with uteruses would just as soon keep the government out of our reproductive systems, if you don't mind.
I can see that there is a lot of room for misuse, for pre-emptive genocide / eugenics type issues, but what I was thinking was like getting a driver's license. Basically anyone could get one after passing a simple test, very few people turned down - mostly just a matter of a person knowing they want a child enough to bother going to apply. If we had to turn on our fertility instead of turn it off, I think there would be far fewer unintended & unwanted births. I see how unromantic this is, and I'm sure half of us would never have existed if such things were in place, but when you read stories like this, you reach for practical solutions...
posted by mdn at 10:18 PM on April 17, 2002
Here's some things to think about:
-I am an adopted child. So is my brother. It is a possibility. However, it was very nearly an act of God that got my parents their children in the first place. You know what though? My parents wanted me. Not that they knew I'd be loud and fluffy and get my tongue pierced, but they did in fact pick me. My brother too. We were chosen, and while it's weird at times, it's a good feeling that we were wanted, and I know my parents are good parents and wanted to have kids. Yet any freaksicle on earth can just go breed and call it a day.
-I had a child who is adopted. He has a wonderful home, a wonderful family, and out of the experience, I have wonderful friends (his parents) too. Again, a little weird sometimes (mostly when explaining it), but he's loved and so very very wanted and there's no way I could have given him everything he has now. Hell, I couldn't give him anything he needed, which is what prompted adoption in the first place. But I, being adopted, knew a lot about it already, so it was an option to consider. Not everyone can say that.
-When I was adopted, there was still sort of a stigma attached to adoption and those who were. Even when my son was adopted, his parents were still asked which one was their 'real' child. It's still sort of looked down on to be adopted, and that sucks. It must be stopped.
-I think that I sort of agree with dejah, I don't want the government anywhere near my body. Hell, I don't want the government anywhere near as close to my body as they seem to think they should be! More to the point, I think that there should be obvious and easy ways to get access to adoption information. Not everyone is well informed, and there are still so many people who look down on adoption. Why is it easier to find out about abortion than about adoption? There are those who endure this almost-as-expensive-as-going-to-the-hospital-without-insurance process and yet wait years on a list for a child. Once we can fix that, there's a chance that maybe this sort of thing won't happen as often. I can hope can't I?
And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
posted by verso at 12:05 AM on April 18, 2002
-I am an adopted child. So is my brother. It is a possibility. However, it was very nearly an act of God that got my parents their children in the first place. You know what though? My parents wanted me. Not that they knew I'd be loud and fluffy and get my tongue pierced, but they did in fact pick me. My brother too. We were chosen, and while it's weird at times, it's a good feeling that we were wanted, and I know my parents are good parents and wanted to have kids. Yet any freaksicle on earth can just go breed and call it a day.
-I had a child who is adopted. He has a wonderful home, a wonderful family, and out of the experience, I have wonderful friends (his parents) too. Again, a little weird sometimes (mostly when explaining it), but he's loved and so very very wanted and there's no way I could have given him everything he has now. Hell, I couldn't give him anything he needed, which is what prompted adoption in the first place. But I, being adopted, knew a lot about it already, so it was an option to consider. Not everyone can say that.
-When I was adopted, there was still sort of a stigma attached to adoption and those who were. Even when my son was adopted, his parents were still asked which one was their 'real' child. It's still sort of looked down on to be adopted, and that sucks. It must be stopped.
-I think that I sort of agree with dejah, I don't want the government anywhere near my body. Hell, I don't want the government anywhere near as close to my body as they seem to think they should be! More to the point, I think that there should be obvious and easy ways to get access to adoption information. Not everyone is well informed, and there are still so many people who look down on adoption. Why is it easier to find out about abortion than about adoption? There are those who endure this almost-as-expensive-as-going-to-the-hospital-without-insurance process and yet wait years on a list for a child. Once we can fix that, there's a chance that maybe this sort of thing won't happen as often. I can hope can't I?
And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
posted by verso at 12:05 AM on April 18, 2002
But why? Isn't it just because we're used to having that be part of our life? What's the real difference? If adoption is so carefully overseen, why can absolutely anyone bring a child into the world?
The real difference is this -- adoption is externally facilitated. The "intrusiveness" is necessary because there are multiple people who bear responsibility if a child is given to someone with a violent criminal background, or who is living on welfare and may not be able to provide the material necessities that the child will need. The adoption process doesn't come into your bedroom, into the most intimate moments of your life, and regulate them.
And it's easy to throw out platitudes about people being licensed to procreate, but those platitudes never come with the answer to a simple question -- what would qualify someone for having children in these schemes? Arbitrary financial or household criteria which would never be able to take into account the myriad lifestyle choices and home environments which exist in this country? Ability to properly answer questions based upon something you've studied in a book? What happens to someone who gets pregnant before they've taken the test? Forced abortions? Sterilisations for repeat offenders?
Most importantly, how would being made to "turn on" one's fertility (an extraordinarily chilling concept in an era of increasing numbers of infertile couples -- women especially -- which has no explanation) in any way prove that one won't end up beating their child to death with a tire iron after chaining them to a radiator for months, sodomising them twice daily with a hot poker, and only feeding them dog food? The idea that "parenting licenses" will prevent anything can only be based upon the presumption that only "unwanted" or accidentally conceived children are abused, a notion which ongoing research seems to contradict entirely.
Practical solutions to ending child abuse are already at our disposal. The most important step is for all of us to be more involved in our communities, with our neighbours, friends and family members. Abuse thrives in environments of secrecy and isolation. We reinforce isolation in the guise and name of privacy and politeness, not wanting to interfere, not wanting to question. Far better to risk embarassing someone by asking how their child got bruised than to stand by and do nothing because you don't want to make unfounded allegations -- a question is not an allegation, but it can be the first step to saving a child's life.
posted by Dreama at 12:17 AM on April 18, 2002
The real difference is this -- adoption is externally facilitated. The "intrusiveness" is necessary because there are multiple people who bear responsibility if a child is given to someone with a violent criminal background, or who is living on welfare and may not be able to provide the material necessities that the child will need. The adoption process doesn't come into your bedroom, into the most intimate moments of your life, and regulate them.
And it's easy to throw out platitudes about people being licensed to procreate, but those platitudes never come with the answer to a simple question -- what would qualify someone for having children in these schemes? Arbitrary financial or household criteria which would never be able to take into account the myriad lifestyle choices and home environments which exist in this country? Ability to properly answer questions based upon something you've studied in a book? What happens to someone who gets pregnant before they've taken the test? Forced abortions? Sterilisations for repeat offenders?
Most importantly, how would being made to "turn on" one's fertility (an extraordinarily chilling concept in an era of increasing numbers of infertile couples -- women especially -- which has no explanation) in any way prove that one won't end up beating their child to death with a tire iron after chaining them to a radiator for months, sodomising them twice daily with a hot poker, and only feeding them dog food? The idea that "parenting licenses" will prevent anything can only be based upon the presumption that only "unwanted" or accidentally conceived children are abused, a notion which ongoing research seems to contradict entirely.
Practical solutions to ending child abuse are already at our disposal. The most important step is for all of us to be more involved in our communities, with our neighbours, friends and family members. Abuse thrives in environments of secrecy and isolation. We reinforce isolation in the guise and name of privacy and politeness, not wanting to interfere, not wanting to question. Far better to risk embarassing someone by asking how their child got bruised than to stand by and do nothing because you don't want to make unfounded allegations -- a question is not an allegation, but it can be the first step to saving a child's life.
posted by Dreama at 12:17 AM on April 18, 2002
i fond it difficult to raise any comment on this. it just baffles the hell out of me and thoroughly tests any faith i have in humanity.
posted by Frasermoo at 1:29 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by Frasermoo at 1:29 AM on April 18, 2002
somethingotherthan: I'm of the opinion that, once you've crossed the line between solving a problem without violence, and solving a problem *with* violence, you've crossed it. There are any number of ways to discipline children that don't involve violence of any kind (yes, spanking is violence, it's using physical force to cause pain in the hopes of causing behavioural change by aversion therapy. Sure, there's a difference between what the Dooleys did and a simple spanking, but they both occupy space on the same continuum). And the things you teach a child when you spank them are many and varied, and few of them are things you want the child to learn (why would you want to teach them that hitting is okay?). I also think that spanking is the lazy way out, it means you don't have to actually think about normal age-stage behaviour and how to effectively change it (ignorance of normal behaviour at any given stage of a child's life is a recognized risk factor for child abuse). I don't think kids should behave because they're afraid not to, I think they should behave because they *want* to, because they understand that it's the right way to be.
I live in Toronto, where this occurred, and the level of indifference the parents have toward these children is frightening. The father beat Randall with a belt last year, hard enough to break the belt, his excuse was that, in Jamaica, "whipping" is an acceptable way to discipline children. Are cultural differences excuses for child abuse? I also have to wonder what the biological mother thinks about all this: did she find "whipping" acceptable? If so, where did she draw the line? There were also reports that the father was more concerned with making his dinner than talking to the police when they eventually arrived after Randall's death. It's just horrifying.
posted by biscotti at 8:30 AM on April 18, 2002
I live in Toronto, where this occurred, and the level of indifference the parents have toward these children is frightening. The father beat Randall with a belt last year, hard enough to break the belt, his excuse was that, in Jamaica, "whipping" is an acceptable way to discipline children. Are cultural differences excuses for child abuse? I also have to wonder what the biological mother thinks about all this: did she find "whipping" acceptable? If so, where did she draw the line? There were also reports that the father was more concerned with making his dinner than talking to the police when they eventually arrived after Randall's death. It's just horrifying.
posted by biscotti at 8:30 AM on April 18, 2002
The adoption process doesn't come into your bedroom, into the most intimate moments of your life, and regulate them.
Nor would this - what I was suggesting was everyone being snipped or norplanted until they wanted to have a kid, and then getting a license to do that and having the treatment reversed. i realize it's not feasible, especially when such treatments are not definitively free of side effects etc, but just as a theoretical idea, it wouldn't interrupt your sex life at all; it wouldn't have anything to do with it, really, except to insure that you didn't get accidently pregnant. And like I said, the licenses would be like driver's licenses - basically anyone could get them, if they wanted one and were willing to do some very basic preparation (basic baby classes would help a lot of uneducated parents). Yeah, driver's licenses didn't stop car crashes from happening - but they did reduce them.
posted by mdn at 8:53 AM on April 18, 2002
Nor would this - what I was suggesting was everyone being snipped or norplanted until they wanted to have a kid, and then getting a license to do that and having the treatment reversed. i realize it's not feasible, especially when such treatments are not definitively free of side effects etc, but just as a theoretical idea, it wouldn't interrupt your sex life at all; it wouldn't have anything to do with it, really, except to insure that you didn't get accidently pregnant. And like I said, the licenses would be like driver's licenses - basically anyone could get them, if they wanted one and were willing to do some very basic preparation (basic baby classes would help a lot of uneducated parents). Yeah, driver's licenses didn't stop car crashes from happening - but they did reduce them.
posted by mdn at 8:53 AM on April 18, 2002
And the things you teach a child when you spank them are many and varied, and few of them are things you want the child to learn (why would you want to teach them that hitting is okay?).
I was spanked occasionally as a child, and what it taught me was not to fuck with my parents. It didn't teach me that "hitting is okay" or any such bullshit. Children simply don't abstract things that far, they just take it at face value: I did X and got spanked, I find being spanked unpleasant, therefore I won't do X. In fact I knew that if I did hit someone (except perhaps in self-defense) I'd probably get the spanking of my life. To this day I've never struck anyone and I have a natural reticence against doing so, although if I had a child and in my opinion they needed spanking, I would probably be able to force myself to do it.
posted by kindall at 8:59 AM on April 18, 2002
I was spanked occasionally as a child, and what it taught me was not to fuck with my parents. It didn't teach me that "hitting is okay" or any such bullshit. Children simply don't abstract things that far, they just take it at face value: I did X and got spanked, I find being spanked unpleasant, therefore I won't do X. In fact I knew that if I did hit someone (except perhaps in self-defense) I'd probably get the spanking of my life. To this day I've never struck anyone and I have a natural reticence against doing so, although if I had a child and in my opinion they needed spanking, I would probably be able to force myself to do it.
posted by kindall at 8:59 AM on April 18, 2002
kindall: there's certainly an argument to be made that the fact that you'd be able to "force yourself" to spank your child means that you *did* learn that hitting is okay. All I'm saying is that there's a fair bit of evidence that spanking does more harm than good (and that corporal punishment taken to extremes gives us things like the Dooley case). I don't understand why a parent wouldn't want to come up with something a bit more intellectual in order to evoke change, and, while "I find being spanked unpleasant, therefore I won't do X." is certainly one result (as is "I find being spanked unpleasant, therefore I won't get caught doing X again"), isn't "I shouldn't do X because I understand that it's wrong" a more positive result? Kids can be reasoned with, kids can learn, why resort to hitting them when there are other, more positive/less violent/more permanent ways to get them to change their behaviour?
posted by biscotti at 9:24 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by biscotti at 9:24 AM on April 18, 2002
biscotti: I have reasoned with, taught, and chided my eldest daughter several times to do things right.
And, knowing she is doing something wrong doesn't seem to matter to her. Not because she is bad, but because she is not thinking.
Kids often don't/won't think out the consequences of their actions, and rational discussion about how their actions impact themselves and others doesn't always cause them to work on new neural pathways. They know, intellectually, that something is wrong, but they forget.
However, the first time I suggested a spanking, and got concurrence from "Mom", there was a sudden shift in attention to consequences....
Spanking, while a last resort, MAY BE NECESSARY for some children to learn. Removing it as an option is granting acceptance to inadequate behaviour. Saying it is wrong, or abusive, is to deny the fact that it works for some kids, where other things fail.
Every child is different, and every child learns differently. For some, positive reinforcement is sufficient. For others, positive punishment is required. I know a family in which the children had no positive corporal punishment. One child is the model of success. The other is, shall we say, significantly less successful. I often wonder what more meaningful differences in developmental guidance might have done to bring a second success.
posted by dwivian at 10:31 AM on April 18, 2002
And, knowing she is doing something wrong doesn't seem to matter to her. Not because she is bad, but because she is not thinking.
Kids often don't/won't think out the consequences of their actions, and rational discussion about how their actions impact themselves and others doesn't always cause them to work on new neural pathways. They know, intellectually, that something is wrong, but they forget.
However, the first time I suggested a spanking, and got concurrence from "Mom", there was a sudden shift in attention to consequences....
Spanking, while a last resort, MAY BE NECESSARY for some children to learn. Removing it as an option is granting acceptance to inadequate behaviour. Saying it is wrong, or abusive, is to deny the fact that it works for some kids, where other things fail.
Every child is different, and every child learns differently. For some, positive reinforcement is sufficient. For others, positive punishment is required. I know a family in which the children had no positive corporal punishment. One child is the model of success. The other is, shall we say, significantly less successful. I often wonder what more meaningful differences in developmental guidance might have done to bring a second success.
posted by dwivian at 10:31 AM on April 18, 2002
dwivian: I accept that in some cases, as a last resort, it may work (and do no long-term harm to the child), I just don't agree that this necessarily means that spanking is the *only* thing that would work. However, when you say that "Removing it as an option is granting acceptance to inadequate behaviour", your logic doesn't parse. There are plenty of behaviour modification options that do not involve corporal punishment, ruling spanking out doesn't mean you accept the behaviour, it means you find another way of changing it.
posted by biscotti at 10:51 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by biscotti at 10:51 AM on April 18, 2002
nothing like using the horrific murder of a little boy as a platform for trumpeting your philosophical beliefs. i'm sure this boy's aunt would be pleased to know that his gruesome death is useful to you in discrediting moral relativism.
Nothing like attempting to discredit the other side by painting an imcompassionate face on it for making use of real world (albeit touchy and recent) examples.
posted by tomorama at 11:18 AM on April 18, 2002
Nothing like attempting to discredit the other side by painting an imcompassionate face on it for making use of real world (albeit touchy and recent) examples.
posted by tomorama at 11:18 AM on April 18, 2002
there's certainly an argument to be made that the fact that you'd be able to "force yourself" to spank your child means that you *did* learn that hitting is okay
I suppose the thirty-three years I have gone thus far not actually hitting anyone doesn't count, eh? Spanking is not the only kind of hitting; the fact that I as a last resort would reluctantly engage in corporal punishment merely means I'd rather spank a kid than fail in my duties as a parent, if it comes down to that.
posted by kindall at 1:43 PM on April 18, 2002
I suppose the thirty-three years I have gone thus far not actually hitting anyone doesn't count, eh? Spanking is not the only kind of hitting; the fact that I as a last resort would reluctantly engage in corporal punishment merely means I'd rather spank a kid than fail in my duties as a parent, if it comes down to that.
posted by kindall at 1:43 PM on April 18, 2002
"In all fairness, a little spanking never hurt to reinforce the point between right and wrong."
All it does is show the child that violence brings about results. It shouldn't be necessary to install fear of being physically hurt into a child to show them that if they did something wrong. It shows them is that if they do A, they will get hurt. Not that doing A is wrong, or why. Oftentimes, they didn't even know what they did wrong was wrong. So they have a sense that anything they do could be punished by people who would not enforce this punishment if they weren't bigger and stronger.
Is it ok to grow up and punish your parents when they become old, and are put into your care, with physical violence? No. So why then is it ok to do it to your children?
Physical violence against children usually ends when they enter adolescence, and not because they stop doing things wrong, far from it, but because they are then potentially old enough to fight back.
"Spanking is not the only kind of hitting"
So you agree that it is a kind of hitting? But that if you only do it to your children, rather than people who are the same size as you, that makes it better?
Please, I'm not intending to anger people. Or even intrude into the ways they raise their children, unless they bring the topic up first. I just have my own views on the subject, and since it came up, wanted to discuss them. If it's not ok to hit people, then it seems to me to be a double standard to hit your child because they hit another.
posted by lucien at 5:37 PM on April 18, 2002
All it does is show the child that violence brings about results. It shouldn't be necessary to install fear of being physically hurt into a child to show them that if they did something wrong. It shows them is that if they do A, they will get hurt. Not that doing A is wrong, or why. Oftentimes, they didn't even know what they did wrong was wrong. So they have a sense that anything they do could be punished by people who would not enforce this punishment if they weren't bigger and stronger.
Is it ok to grow up and punish your parents when they become old, and are put into your care, with physical violence? No. So why then is it ok to do it to your children?
Physical violence against children usually ends when they enter adolescence, and not because they stop doing things wrong, far from it, but because they are then potentially old enough to fight back.
"Spanking is not the only kind of hitting"
So you agree that it is a kind of hitting? But that if you only do it to your children, rather than people who are the same size as you, that makes it better?
Please, I'm not intending to anger people. Or even intrude into the ways they raise their children, unless they bring the topic up first. I just have my own views on the subject, and since it came up, wanted to discuss them. If it's not ok to hit people, then it seems to me to be a double standard to hit your child because they hit another.
posted by lucien at 5:37 PM on April 18, 2002
All it does is show the child that violence brings about results.
Well, this is an important truth to learn at any age, is it not? This would seem to argue for corporal punishment; I understood you to take the opposite position.
However, I must again state that this is not "all" that it accomplishes. Young children, as I said, do not reason at this level of abstraction. They learn "I'd better not do that thing that pisses off mommy," not "violence solves problems."
So you agree that it is a kind of hitting? But that if you only do it to your children, rather than people who are the same size as you, that makes it better?
Of course I agree that spanking is a kind of hitting. The hand (or other implement) hits the ass, does it not? I thought that was the definition. Or do different people spank their children some other way?
I've never met an adult who was so blissfully unaware of their surroundings and so completely ignorant of their own mortality that I had to use physical force to get their attention in a life-threatening situation. But if I had to knock down a fully-grown mentally retarded man in order to prevent him from wandering out into the street, I think that would be a reasonable thing to do as a last resort. Maybe even as a first resort if the danger was imminent and this was the fastest way to keep him out of it.
It is your job as a parent to protect your children and to civilize them. The instant you become a parent, this becomes your #1 job, everything else in your life takes a back seat for the next 18 years. If the most effective (or the only) way to do the job in some cases turns out to require spanking them, then it is better to cause them a moment's pain than to abandon your responsibility to protect them and civilize them. It is not that hitting is good, it is that failing to do your parental duty is worse; in the long run you may cause more harm by failing to spank your children then you would in the short term by doing it.
posted by kindall at 7:57 PM on April 18, 2002
Well, this is an important truth to learn at any age, is it not? This would seem to argue for corporal punishment; I understood you to take the opposite position.
However, I must again state that this is not "all" that it accomplishes. Young children, as I said, do not reason at this level of abstraction. They learn "I'd better not do that thing that pisses off mommy," not "violence solves problems."
So you agree that it is a kind of hitting? But that if you only do it to your children, rather than people who are the same size as you, that makes it better?
Of course I agree that spanking is a kind of hitting. The hand (or other implement) hits the ass, does it not? I thought that was the definition. Or do different people spank their children some other way?
I've never met an adult who was so blissfully unaware of their surroundings and so completely ignorant of their own mortality that I had to use physical force to get their attention in a life-threatening situation. But if I had to knock down a fully-grown mentally retarded man in order to prevent him from wandering out into the street, I think that would be a reasonable thing to do as a last resort. Maybe even as a first resort if the danger was imminent and this was the fastest way to keep him out of it.
It is your job as a parent to protect your children and to civilize them. The instant you become a parent, this becomes your #1 job, everything else in your life takes a back seat for the next 18 years. If the most effective (or the only) way to do the job in some cases turns out to require spanking them, then it is better to cause them a moment's pain than to abandon your responsibility to protect them and civilize them. It is not that hitting is good, it is that failing to do your parental duty is worse; in the long run you may cause more harm by failing to spank your children then you would in the short term by doing it.
posted by kindall at 7:57 PM on April 18, 2002
"This would seem to argue for corporal punishment; I understood you to take the opposite position."
Yes you understand correctly. And, good point. Let me be clear(er). By making the point "All it does is show the child that violence brings about results." I don't mean to implicate that it necessarily brings about the results you might desire or even imagine.
"It is your job as a parent to protect your children and to civilize them."
I see the role of a parent as this - to keep a child safe. To help a child grow to maturity and enter society as a person who is able to work with society when they should work with society, and work to change society when society is lacking. To help a child reach their potential.
We agree on the goals, but not on the means.
We will have to agree to disagree. I don't see hitting children as being a civilised thing to do. I have never been in a situation whereby I had to hit a child to make them aware of danger, and if I did, I think it would only serve to make them aware of the danger presented by me, the parent, because that is where the hurt is coming from. Nor do I see it as the "duty" of being a parent or a care-giver to children. But it seems we are at loggerheads, and I have said my piece. So I'll just pony up a couple of links that I find to be appropriate. 1 2
posted by lucien at 9:16 PM on April 18, 2002
Yes you understand correctly. And, good point. Let me be clear(er). By making the point "All it does is show the child that violence brings about results." I don't mean to implicate that it necessarily brings about the results you might desire or even imagine.
"It is your job as a parent to protect your children and to civilize them."
I see the role of a parent as this - to keep a child safe. To help a child grow to maturity and enter society as a person who is able to work with society when they should work with society, and work to change society when society is lacking. To help a child reach their potential.
We agree on the goals, but not on the means.
We will have to agree to disagree. I don't see hitting children as being a civilised thing to do. I have never been in a situation whereby I had to hit a child to make them aware of danger, and if I did, I think it would only serve to make them aware of the danger presented by me, the parent, because that is where the hurt is coming from. Nor do I see it as the "duty" of being a parent or a care-giver to children. But it seems we are at loggerheads, and I have said my piece. So I'll just pony up a couple of links that I find to be appropriate. 1 2
posted by lucien at 9:16 PM on April 18, 2002
biscotti: However, when you say that "Removing it as an option is granting acceptance to inadequate behaviour", your logic doesn't parse.
How not? I said that, for some children it is NECESSARY to have corporal punishment for the behavioural modification process to be successful. Removal of that option is the same as accepting the inadequate behaviour, because, for those children, other methods have already been proven to fail.
There are plenty of behaviour modification options that do not involve corporal punishment, ruling spanking out doesn't mean you accept the behaviour, it means you find another way of changing it.
And, as I said, if there IS no other method, what do you do when the last resort in your book isn't an option? You either condone the bad behaviour, or you throw up your hands and declare yourself to be a fit parent of a bad kid. I would state, for the record, my agreement with the Oompa-Loompas, "Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame / You know exactly who's to blame / The mother and the father ".
posted by dwivian at 8:16 AM on April 19, 2002
How not? I said that, for some children it is NECESSARY to have corporal punishment for the behavioural modification process to be successful. Removal of that option is the same as accepting the inadequate behaviour, because, for those children, other methods have already been proven to fail.
There are plenty of behaviour modification options that do not involve corporal punishment, ruling spanking out doesn't mean you accept the behaviour, it means you find another way of changing it.
And, as I said, if there IS no other method, what do you do when the last resort in your book isn't an option? You either condone the bad behaviour, or you throw up your hands and declare yourself to be a fit parent of a bad kid. I would state, for the record, my agreement with the Oompa-Loompas, "Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame / You know exactly who's to blame / The mother and the father ".
posted by dwivian at 8:16 AM on April 19, 2002
dwivian: there is always another method. Hitting never "has" to be done. There are all kinds of resources (like the ones lucien linked to) that will help you find alternatives to hitting. And while I agree (as I've said) that a couple of spankings might not cause long-term harm (in most children), I disagree that it's ever "necessary" to use corporal punishment. The Oompa-Loompas are right, you should never blame the children, but I don't see how spanking enters into it.
posted by biscotti at 8:41 AM on April 22, 2002
posted by biscotti at 8:41 AM on April 22, 2002
« Older Nigerian Boy Raised by Chimps. | You too can be a ninja! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This story has been all over the newspapers here in Canada (esp. here in Toronto where these low-lifes live).
Thoughts:
- I can only wonder how all this managed to slip through the cracks. I'm not sure who to blame here. Is it our society, our government social programs, his teachers, his neighbours and other family? Obviously the problem lies far deeper than just Tony and Marcia Dooley.
- It particularly saddens me that their birth mother sent him and his brother to Canada hoping that they would have a better life. Hopefully in light of all this, his brother will now be put in the custody of properly caring hands - although I'd imagine he has already been scarred for life after having to live through this kind of torture.
- Marcia Dooley has been assaulted in jail by two women convicted of murdering a cop. Frankly, this really shows how low of an offense killing a child can be. When two criminals convicted of murder can look down upon you, you know you're going to hell.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 2:41 PM on April 17, 2002