Lisa: Your mention of 'corporal punishment' in the schools brings me back to the 1940's when I was in grammar school & the teachers were all spinster ladies. One had a leather strap which was always in view on her desk; another had a 3ft hardwood yardstick with a metal edge which was always 'handy.' A third always carried the blackboard pointer with her, which I remember well, as I was un- ceremoniously 'whacked on the head' with it once for 'allegedly' not paying attention. AND, I didn't run home to tell my parents about it either. I'm sure others have similar memories. BILL in CT -------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret - It never really occurred to me that children were considered property or that they were on the same level as animals. there seems to be enough evidence to say Bailey intended to kill Pollock, so in that regard it is different than the Brown case. After Donna's message, I realized that it wasn't really that long ago that we still allowed corporal punishment in the schools. Thanks for your input on this subject, Lisa ----- Original Message ----- From: "M. E. Potter" <potter@inch.com> To: <RIGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Re: [RIGENWEB] Pollock and Brown Murders > I think Donna has hit on the main reason -- lack of legal protection for > children in that time, especially one too young to be able to work--thus a > child with no economic value. But one factor may have been intent and > premeditation (or lack of it). Counsel for Brown may have argued that > Brown did not intend to kill the child--that he went into a wild rage, > etc. Whereas Bailey intended to kill Pollock and may have planned the > murder in advance. The witness who testified that Bailey said that either > he or Pollock would be dead soon could have established > premeditation. This is just speculation, but intent and premeditation have > been factors in considering degrees of guilt for centuries. > > Margaret > > At 11:11 AM 3/16/2006, you wrote: > >Hi Lisa, > > I do know that there were no laws regarding child abuse until after > > about 1875 when a little girl named Mary Ellen was abused in NYC. The > > perpetrators were convicted under animal abuse laws with the argument > > that a child is technically an animal. We had laws protecting animals > > before we had child abuse statutes. Children were considered property by > > many and child abuse was not really recognized as a serious problem until > > the mid 1900s when Helfer and Kempe published their work on the Battered > > Child Syndrome. Even now the punishment for abuse (that does not result > > in death) is as little as 30 days in jail in one state! > > I am guessing that this little girl may have been poor, perhaps > > orphaned or otherwise disenfranchised, and had no one to adv