]Some have mentioned there has to be a better way to handle things like this, other than get the gov't involved. There was, 50 years ago, when families were not a shambles. My mother tells a story of how her Dad hit her really hard and left a bruise on her legs. While she was at her grandmothers house (his mom), the grandmother saw the bruise asked what happened. Apparently my great grandmother went postal on her son and chewed his butt up one side and down the other. He was much more careful in his discipline after that. Sadly today, families are torn apart, grandmother would never be around the kids enough to see the bruise, and might not care if she did. That is why the gov't steps in, because we as a society have failed in our familial duties. You want the gov't out of families, strengthen the families. When familes function there is no need for gov't intervention.
With all due respect, this is a cop-out. What about those who don't
have families, due to accident or circumstance? I've known individuals to whom this would apply.
And there are plenty of cases of familial abuse where there
is an extended family, who intentionally avoid knowledge or look the other way.
And there are plenty of families today which aren't "in shambles". Frankly, most of the families I know aren't "in shambles", and a likely majority of the rest are only due to unavoidable tragedy.
Appealing to the degraded state of the family is great rhetoric for those pushing a political agenda; it's been used time and again as justification for government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong: "Obviously government needs to step in and start doing such-and-such because the family isn't doing it any more!"
This rhetoric is at least a century old, and during that time government meddling has proved itself to be worthless to a far greater extent than "the family" has shown itself to be "in shambles". At least, in my experience.
I'm not sure there ever has been, or ever will be, an easy or ideal answer to this dilemma.
I say this because, despite everything I just wrote, I
do accept the possibility (and, indeed, reality) of certain acts of aggression which exist even in a parent-child relationship. (The obvious examples are murder, rape, and permanent physical disfigurement -- horrible, but they do occur.) I have no problem with such behavior being punished by the state. However, I am undoubtedly concerned with the tendency of government to take such approval and run with it, far into the realm of excess.
I don't know where to draw the line, and more importantly how to keep it from creeping, but I am certain that it is not so simple as it's often presented.