Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Cleek at it again

Well, it appears the same wackjob who went after the OTC professor for using an ill-timed joke (but then later dropped charges after he realized how idiotic the charges were) is now going after a teacher and her husband for using a ping pong paddle to swat their kid's behind, and then forcing that child to hammer nails as a punishment.

If the story is to be taken at face value, my opinion is up in the air as to whether or not is constitutes "abuse." This is a touchy subject, corporal punishment, and like abortion, I doubt you can sway people from their opinions. I don't have small children, so my opinion doesn't matter at this point.

But I have to ask: Both parents have been charged with "inflicting cruel and unusual punishment." Was it the paddle or the hammering of the nails? Since when is hammering punishment? I used to steal my dad's hammer and drive nails into anything I could get my hands on. When he found out I nailed a couple into his truck tire, I got more than just a ping pong paddle.

My doubts rest with this prosecutor and his take on the law. He seems to believe that he has his finger on the pulse of Christian County. Instead, he comes off as a member of the morality police, and his belief systems have severely clouded his judgment.

But what do I know?

Here's the article: Local Paper


Mary Helen said...

I am assuming that someone from Children's Division investigated this claim and found it to be substantiated. It is illegal to discipline a child in a way that leaves bruises. I know that plenty of reports go unsubstantiated, so if someone substantiated the abuse, there must be evidence. Whether anyone thinks Cleek is right or wrong doesn't change the facts.

Mark said...

I hope you're right. I have researched cases where this isn't the case, though in your line of work I imagine you see a perspective others do not see.

Mary Helen said...

I've seen many cases in this state and others where the investigators err on the side of caution, even when it seems obvious there is something wrong going on. In my experience (and I know others have different ones) they really do look for physical evidence of abuse before they substantiate.