A few years ago, my wife (nearing retirement) was at her mom’s. Her mom is 80 or so, and was playing around with a willow branch that had come off their tree, just swishing it around. She was playing and said my wife had missed a few swats she should have had and swung it at her and just happened to hit her with it. We’re talking an 80 year old woman with bad eyes. My wife says it wasn’t a hard swing and wasn’t intentional. It raised a welt and that welt broke open and showed red.
Now, is that a felony? Of course not, you’d say. And you’d be right.
But the ability of a switch to raise a welt is what makes me think Peterson didn’t have any abusive intent in mind. He was mirroring what he had learned as a child. You punish with a switch.
These guys are freakish strong and don’t know how different they are.
Is it a felony? Prison??? Nope, it’s some kind of intervention level offense (a misdemeanor?) that should get child services involved and should get Peterson into required parenting and/or anger classes.
According to what I read yesterday, this kid was not merely swatted with a stick, he was beaten to a pulp. He had bloody welts all over his body and face.
If that is accurate, then it IS a felony. And he should do hard time for it.
Apparently this was done in anger by a guy who could kill you with one punch.
First, I didn't comment on what Mr. Peterson did or didn't do to his young son. I merely mentioned that harsh punishment in my own family correlated with failure in life, and milder punishment seemed to correlate with general life success. I then noted that my own sons, although raised strictly and with discipline, were never hit. And managed to turn out pretty well.
In terms of the present case, I believe the father engaged in criminal child abuse, and prison would not be out of line. I hope that, if convicted, the judge has significant discretion, as it will be the details of the case that determine whether or not incarceration is appropriate or needed.
However, my own view is contingent on seeing what evidence is presented at trial. I'm willing to accept that perhaps he is not guilty of criminal child abuse.
What leads me to believe that this was a criminal act are the following: the punishment seems to be an act of rage, not a measured dose of discipline. Apparently, much of the boy's body is marked, including his genitalia. When my father belted us, it was one, two, three shots to our rear ends. Usually with our pants on. We didn't get belted all over our bodies, including between our thighs. The leaves in the mouth suggests to me an intentional cruelty related to the out-of-control rage. Finally, the kid is four years old. The punishment given is out of proportion to the person to whom it was directed. At four, I might have gotten a spanking by my father with his open hand, or perhaps with a belt. Once, maybe twice. I might have gotten an open slap across the face. But my father never thrashed me at age four.
The punishment here, to me, does not suggest a measured response to the actions of a four year-old, but rather the violent, cruel, out-of-control actions of someone large enough to readily kill a young child. Mr. Peterson is responsible for himself, and must realize that his size and strength are, themselves, a hazard to the health and well-being of others whom he chooses to assault.
But, if it is shown at trial that the young tyke is a fire-setting, foul-mouthed, manipulative, narcissistic little psychopath, then I'd consider that as a significant defense.
Otherwise, Mr. Peterson should be held accountable.
sitetest