Originally posted by Curtis
Punishments don't require consent, although they do demand judicious application.


Precisely. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that punishments should be non-consensual, even though none of the definitions deliberately say so. It is in the context, though, if you read it. "1. to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc. as a penalty for some offense, transgression or fault 2. to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.)"

Subject and inflict are not terms that one normally would associate with consent. Besides, in terms of the logic set down by someone consenting to punishment, one would have to look at the entirity of the judicial system and wonder why the accused are not allowed to decide their own terms for punishment. Punishment is to be subjected, as by a jury, within a set guideline of predetermined parameters of acceptability. That is why the law sets higher sentences for worse crimes and why parents usually follow the same type of practice.

I wouldn't punish my daughter physically for breaking a vase or turning over a lamp, but I would give her a swat if she were acting up in public, because I would want her to stop what she's doing at once and not for my own sake, but for the sake of the people around me as well. I've heard enough children screaming through the aisles of the Wal-Mart toy section to know that other people do not appreciate people that allow their children to be completely misbehaved in public. If a slap on the wrist or a thump on the bum lets her know not to act that way in public the next time she's out, then I have no problem with it.