Here is a case that was brought to the courts of Jessica Serafin that received so much attention in the United States.

The first link is the the denial with the rationale by the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeal (second only to the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court (the second link) put an end to the case on June 23, 2008 with its judgment beyond appeal. The first link gets to the heart of the matter and explains the rational for the denial of Jessica's appeal was that her attendance there was her choice at 18. She felt that her bottom should have been the given the same protection as an adult as opposed to the two minor miscreants but the court felt that since her attendance at a public charter school was her choice, no such provision applied. She was basically given a choice of getting booted or being paddled and she chose the latter, tough cookies. As an aside, it must have been a warm day in June for the three of them to have their bottoms warmed in San Antonio, TX, so close to the Mexico border, where they would have been free from CP as in the rest of the world. The (third) link is an OTT link, I've already posted, that is a hoot and would better fit under the thread of the proper target of CP.

www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/06/06-50530.0.wpd.pdf

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-9760.htm

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/09/379530.shtml

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5THCIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-50530
Summary Calendar
JESSICA SERAFIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION; BRETT WILKINSON,
Individually and In His Official Capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 05-CV-62
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jessica Serafin attended the School of Excellence in Education (SEE), a
public charter school in San Antonio, Texas, during the 2003-2004 academic
year. On June 18, 2004, weeks after Serafins eighteenth birthday, Principal
Brett Wilkinson summoned her and two other students to his office after they
breached school rules and left campus during the school day. In accordance with
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 30, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

Now, if only they'd used a little imagination!

Why the Supreme Court didn't ask for the paddling to be recreated on Jessica, I fail to understand.

Because then, all they would have had to do was rule-hey, missy, your bottom WAS protected just now & back then. Because you were NOT instructed to lower your panties for it, or even your jeans/skirt, we hereby decree your butt received adequate protection!

They could also have added-for wasting the time of the Supreme Court, all 7 of us ARE now gonna bust your bare butt one after the other-yay!


Steve M

Senator Arlen Specter's questions could be considered by some as having a less than honorable of Shelly Gaspersohn found by the Mad Paddler's research of a 1982 paddling of a senior in high school. Let's give those who administer corporal punishhment and those who investigate it the benefit of the doubt. As far as the state of dress or undress, I think any adult would instinctively address this legitimate concern, by varying the force, however, let's not accuse Americans of being perverse fetishists, others, peferred unnamed, among this esteem Forum, may shamefully be more proned to issue uniform knickers for less than noble purposes. Too many are thinking like to authors of the third link. Viva the American Way.

Steve M, My fellow American, let me make one thing perfectly clear, as our 37th president was fond of saying. I am neither claiming that have less than honorable motives nor am I making a blanket judgment upon any nationality, least of all those whose roots may recah back to readers of this esteem Forum.

The Supreme Court Landmark decision happened in 1977 (Ingraham-et-al-v-Wright-et-al) in regards to corporal punishment. Since then the debate has been is Wright, right or wrong? There nine members in the Supreme Court and the views of those who said CP was wrong in 1977, were with the exception of Stevens are gone. Judging by their liberal stances on other issues the four names of our present justices who would be likely to oppose CP are below them. With Obama in the White House, the two imperiled by age or health are Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, now treated for pancreatic cancer in its early stage. Their replacement will not tip the balance which will not change anything. The Senate party plurality is crucial as the confirming party of the presidential choices for replacing Justices and this, among other reasons, are why it is such a focus of attention and IMHO judicial intervention is not a good policy on certain matters that do not involve rights that are found in our Constitution either by invention or imaginative interpretations, therefore, I believe the right to apply corporal punishment should be determined by the States. The Supreme Court and Florida 2000 Gore vs. Bush and Ingraham vs. Wright, the Court cant always be the right place to thrash things out? Speaking of thrashing, look at some data culled from Floridas Department of Education, the paddle and the pendulum is still swinging. I strongly suspect the fear of districts being sued, as in Dade County, FL, read the stats carefully, have more to do with the decline in incidences of CP than the will of the teachers. Judicial fiat doesnt always end the debates look at 1973 Roe v Wade, and in the 1977 CP landmark decision there still is no consensus. Democracies are messier than monarchies unless there is a revolution or so Im told.

1977 John Paul Stevens, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White

2009 Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

http://law.jrank.org/pages/13176/Ingraham-et-al-v-Wright-et-al.html

http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/discipline.pdf

Second only to Ingraham's Dade County (1977) FL is the Garcia, Penasco (1987) NM ruling in importance; Garcia ruling focused on the differences between beating and corporal punishment. It gave what some would say too much discretion to the teacher. I'm sure most teachers would handle a third grade girl differently. Of course, 2009 is not 1982. FL is in the top 10 and NM is close to it among the states that still padddle. Of all the rulings, this is the ruling that addressed almost all objections.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/817/817.F2d.650.85-1641.html

Politics in America is cyclical as shown by the maps, the electoral map on the Bush years by the anti corporal punishment lobby shows beyond doubt the correlation between states that paddle and states that don't. This is evident by the 13 states that paddle 1,000 or more children. The anti corporal punishment lobby wants to take the authority from those who are closest to the schools, and have used the states to impose their will upon smaller entities. State reports, with detailed district breakdowns, show this clearly. Who hires the district or the state? Who writes the handbooks, the districts or the state? Who votes for their local legislators? THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE! Those furthest from the classroom are more enlightened than the rest. Conservatives, some for order reason and others for religious reasons, or some for both, really shouldn't have a say in the matter because they're too dumb to vote. The anti corporal punishment dream is to have the fewest people possible, the Supreme Court Justices prohibiting it, rendering lesser entities to have a any say in the matter. Ironically, as mentioned before, it was Dade County FL in 1977 where Ingraham left it to the people to decide who paddles and the Supreme Court that ruled in favor of Bush over Gore in FL, making Bush President. Had Gore chosen his Justices THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE would have no say! In addition to the map links I've included Op Ed piece from a 38 year old conservative woman that indicates it will be a while before this issue will be resolved. Her column appears in 200 newspapers and not all of them are in the thirteen states.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=11

http://irregulartimes.com/cpmap.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/22/abu-ghraib-i-fying-americas-schools

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin

One may wonder what the Supreme Court has to do with Corporal Punishment, by now you know that the race of the school plays such a prominent role in records. It's called a race card. Fortunately, it was used to no avail and a man was elected to the highest office of our land, regardless of what you may think of him, due to his merits and not his race. The anti CP zealots say look at the blacks paddled and the young blacks jailed. But somehow the areas where so many are incarcerated are the very area that CP has been outlawed for decades but those who judge the south for racism are quiet when it comes to keeping their streets safe and the criminals behind bars. Im sure racial profiling has little to do with the high numbers of CP due to misbehavior or incarceration due to felonies. Family structure (no fathers around) and socioeconomic factors transcend race but aren't considered in the reports. Cruel and unusual punishment is another fallacious claim to support a constitutional objection. Scroll to the bottom of this link and read about torture in this Australian UN report. CP is put together with human trafficking and female circumcision. Padding in the southern states is not torture. Not all teachers paddle where it is permitted but you would find it hard to find any teacher from any school where it is permitted to characterize it as torture.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:f39lHvFJiysJ:www.universalhumanrightsindex.org/documents/828/1402/document/en/pdf/text.pdf+CAT/C/67/Add.7+corporal+punishment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us