Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The first purpose of law reform to prohibit corporal punishment of children within the family is prevention: to prevent violence against children by changing attitudes and practice, underlining children's right to equal protection and providing an unambiguous foundation for child protection and for the promotion of positive, non-violent and ...
explaining his view that “Times have changed and there is no place in a modern society for the physical punishment of children." [4] Supporters of a ban across the UK include the Children's Commissioners for Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, [3] while opponents have included the Be Reasonable campaign and evangelical Christian ...
The modern church's views regarding torture have changed drastically, largely reverting to the earlier stance. In 1953, in an address to the 6th International Congress of Penal Law, Pope Pius XII approvingly reiterated the position of Pope Nicholas the Great over a thousand years before him, when his predecessor had unilaterally opposed the use ...
The corporal works of mercy are an important subject of Christian iconography. In some representations of the Middle Ages, the seven works were allegorically juxtaposed with the seven deadly sins (avarice, anger, envy, laziness, unchastity, intemperance, pride). The pictorial representation of the works of mercy began in the 12th century.
Regarding this topic, the social principles say, among other things, that “corporal punishment models aggressive behavior as a solution to conflict.” Jesus never modeled that behavior.
In 1977, the question of the legality of corporal punishment in schools was brought to the Supreme Court. At this point, only New Jersey (1867), Massachusetts (1971), Hawaii (1973), and Maine (1975) had outlawed physical punishment in public schools, and just New Jersey had also outlawed the practice in private schools.
The central question to be answered in the present appeal, from a decision in a Local Division, was whether, when Parliament enacted the South African Schools Act [2] (wherein it prohibited corporal punishment in schools), it had violated the rights of parents of children at independent schools who, in line with their religious convictions, had consented to its use.
In 1990, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child established an obligation to “prohibit all corporal punishment of children.” The U.S. was the convention's lone holdout.