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
Again, barring additional information, I’m going with what I know of a switching.
A switch is limber and it bends, so as I try to imagine how an inner thigh can be struck, the only thing that makes sense is that a switch to the outer leg then had the end of the switch wrap around the leg. The very nature of a switch is that it is a slender, limber outer branch.
I really can’t think of any other way than a wrap around to hit an inner thigh.