P
pricklypare
Guest
within his rights when he paddled? an 18 year old woman, a student at the school, for leaving the campus without authorization during school hours. Two other female students both 17 were also paddled for this infraction.
This is an alternative high school whose discipline policy categorically states that infractions of the rules will result at the discretion of the principal in the administration of corporal punishment. Parents must agree to this provision when they enroll their children in the school. In the case of the 18 year old woman the appeals court ruled by remaining in the school she implicitly consent to being spanked if she violated school rules. And thus the principal was within his legal rights to paddle her. It was a male principal by the way and this happened about two years ago in San Antonio, Texas.
Wrong or incorrect answers to this question.
corporal punishment is against the law. (it may be in some places but not everywhere Texas among those places where it is not illegal to spank a student)
the principal would face assault charges. (may be he should have been subject to those charges but not in Texas was he liable for criminal or civil charges for the administration of reasonable corporal punishment
the woman argued in her lawsuit and in her appeal when the suit was dismissed that her parents' consent to being paddled expired when she turned 18. The courts more or less agreed but said it didn't matter. That the woman when she turned 18 had the legal right to withdraw from the school if she didn't like its discipline or any other policies and practices and that by remaining enrolled in the school she agreed to abide by the rules and accept the contractually stated consequences for violating those rules
The legal rational is different with students under 18 than it is with those over 18 but both groups of students can be paddled.
Anyway the question is should this be the reason and should the principal have been within his rights to corporally punish a young adult student or for that matter the younger girls
This is an alternative high school whose discipline policy categorically states that infractions of the rules will result at the discretion of the principal in the administration of corporal punishment. Parents must agree to this provision when they enroll their children in the school. In the case of the 18 year old woman the appeals court ruled by remaining in the school she implicitly consent to being spanked if she violated school rules. And thus the principal was within his legal rights to paddle her. It was a male principal by the way and this happened about two years ago in San Antonio, Texas.
Wrong or incorrect answers to this question.
corporal punishment is against the law. (it may be in some places but not everywhere Texas among those places where it is not illegal to spank a student)
the principal would face assault charges. (may be he should have been subject to those charges but not in Texas was he liable for criminal or civil charges for the administration of reasonable corporal punishment
the woman argued in her lawsuit and in her appeal when the suit was dismissed that her parents' consent to being paddled expired when she turned 18. The courts more or less agreed but said it didn't matter. That the woman when she turned 18 had the legal right to withdraw from the school if she didn't like its discipline or any other policies and practices and that by remaining enrolled in the school she agreed to abide by the rules and accept the contractually stated consequences for violating those rules
The legal rational is different with students under 18 than it is with those over 18 but both groups of students can be paddled.
Anyway the question is should this be the reason and should the principal have been within his rights to corporally punish a young adult student or for that matter the younger girls