From an article I searched on corporal punishment in Canada. Has this Bill been passed? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/07/31/f-spanking-discipline-debate.html
The Canadian context
Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, enacted in 1892, provides parents, teachers and caregivers — including babysitters and foster parents — a defence when they use corporal punishment as "reasonable force" to discipline children. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the century-old law in 2004 when it was asked to rule on whether spanking constitutes "reasonable force" for disciplining children, or whether it is a form of abuse.
The court heard arguments on both sides of the debate and ruled by a 6-3 margin that the law was constitutional and should stand. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin stated that under Section 43, criminal law does not apply when force "is part of a genuine effort to educate the child, poses no reasonable risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling, and is reasonable under the circumstances."
Changes to the section were recommended, however. In her decision, McLachlin ruled out the use of corporal punishment for children under age two or for teenagers. She also came out against using instruments such as rulers and belts, or striking a child on the face or head.
The court also revised legal doctrine that had lumped parents and teachers together. McLachlin wrote "corporal punishment by teachers is unacceptable," but the court nonetheless concluded that teachers could use reasonable force to "remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions."
Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision, Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette introduced a bill to the Senate to eliminate Section 43. Known as Bill S-209, the legislation was mulled over in the Senate for more than three years as the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers spoke out against it.
The bill was eventually amended to allow parents and caregivers to use force in very specific situations — such as a small smack to the hand to stop a child who is about to do something dangerous or harmful. But routine discipline and the use of spanking as premeditated punishment wouldn't be allowed.
The bill passed its third reading in the Senate in June 2008 and moved to the House of Commons for approval before it could become law. The House never held a vote, however, as Parliament was dissolved for an election.
========================================================================
Back to GPIDEAL's comments: A lawyer interviewed on CNN said that the judge should be taken off the bench, etc. but stated that this case could be statute-barred and that it's not clear regarding corporal punishment in Texas. Personally, it's despicable due to her disability, her age and the use of excessive force. The easiest way to discipline her in such a situation (if she was illegally downloading music), would be to suspend her internet privileges.
The Canadian context
Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, enacted in 1892, provides parents, teachers and caregivers — including babysitters and foster parents — a defence when they use corporal punishment as "reasonable force" to discipline children. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the century-old law in 2004 when it was asked to rule on whether spanking constitutes "reasonable force" for disciplining children, or whether it is a form of abuse.
The court heard arguments on both sides of the debate and ruled by a 6-3 margin that the law was constitutional and should stand. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin stated that under Section 43, criminal law does not apply when force "is part of a genuine effort to educate the child, poses no reasonable risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling, and is reasonable under the circumstances."
Changes to the section were recommended, however. In her decision, McLachlin ruled out the use of corporal punishment for children under age two or for teenagers. She also came out against using instruments such as rulers and belts, or striking a child on the face or head.
The court also revised legal doctrine that had lumped parents and teachers together. McLachlin wrote "corporal punishment by teachers is unacceptable," but the court nonetheless concluded that teachers could use reasonable force to "remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions."
Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision, Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette introduced a bill to the Senate to eliminate Section 43. Known as Bill S-209, the legislation was mulled over in the Senate for more than three years as the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers spoke out against it.
The bill was eventually amended to allow parents and caregivers to use force in very specific situations — such as a small smack to the hand to stop a child who is about to do something dangerous or harmful. But routine discipline and the use of spanking as premeditated punishment wouldn't be allowed.
The bill passed its third reading in the Senate in June 2008 and moved to the House of Commons for approval before it could become law. The House never held a vote, however, as Parliament was dissolved for an election.
========================================================================
Back to GPIDEAL's comments: A lawyer interviewed on CNN said that the judge should be taken off the bench, etc. but stated that this case could be statute-barred and that it's not clear regarding corporal punishment in Texas. Personally, it's despicable due to her disability, her age and the use of excessive force. The easiest way to discipline her in such a situation (if she was illegally downloading music), would be to suspend her internet privileges.
