If you want to know why it seems reasonable in our current society for a family to blame the second amendment for their parenting failure, then you might consider what happened to a father who disciplined his son by making him walk home from school. Via The Garden Island:
A Kilauea man was given probation and a fine Wednesday in 5th Circuit Court for punishing his son by making him walk a mile for not answering his questions — a form of discipline a judge called “old school” and no longer appropriate.
Robert Demond was sentenced to a one-year probation, a $200 fine and to a child parenting class for a misdemeanor charge of second-degree endangering the welfare of a minor.
Demond said he would handle it differently now after going through Family Court, where the case originated on Oct. 17, 2013, and to Circuit Court, where he pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor charge.
Demond told the judge that it was a common form of punishment when he was a kid and that he didn’t see it as morally wrong or criminal. He had picked his son up from school and questioned him about a matter that came to his attention. When his son didn’t respond, he stopped the vehicle and made him walk home to think about his actions.
“How far did you make him walk?” asked Judge Kathleen Watanabe.
“About a mile,” Demond said.
These are different times, Watanabe said. It is understandable that you became upset with your son, but it is dangerous for children to walk along the highway, and there are predators out there, she said. The age of the child was not revealed in the course of the hearing and the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney would not divulge further information.
First let’s deal with the insane claim that “child predators” make this parental decision a crime. I invite readers to acquaint themselves with the work of Lenore Skenazy, starting with her Free Range Kids website. The popular idea that we are becoming a more fearful culture because of an increase in threats to children is simply a myth. Things are not so much worse than “when we were kids.”
Notice the “war on terror” logic here. Even if the world was so much more unsafe as the judge claimed, whose fault would that be? The police and courts are a monopoly that we are forced to support by our taxes and by our submission. In return they are supposed to protect us from criminals. So what happens when they claim to be total failures at protecting us from crime and keeping us safe? By their logic, because they have failed to fulfill the function that supposedly justifies their existence, therefore they have the reason and authority to arrest and try parents for parenting. What other organization in the world could demand so much more power on the basis of failing at what is supposed to be their primary duty? It is a diabolical scheme.
The father must now take a “parenting class.” How on earth is he supposed to parent a child who has just been taught he can take his father to the authorities for such a trivial “offense”? This judge has totally undermined this family.
And, since we are still talking about “the virgin killer,” perhaps we should ask, what are the risks involved in breaking down the family? Elliot Rodgers was under the care of “professionals” from the time he was eight. Did that help him? Now this child has been put under the authority of “professionals” and knows they are the ultimate authority in his life, to whom he can make his father bow when he feels it necessary.
Of course, not all problems will be as dramatic as a mass shooting, but we still need to ask ourselves if raising a child who can’t walk a mile from his home until he is an adult might not have detrimental effects on his development.
Fear of the risk of the boogeyman child predator may be distracting us from the much more likely risk of stunted maturity and social development from raising kids inside all the time.