this comes up on WMST-L repeatedly. this archive of typical conversational dynamics is not conclusive, but there is a claim that there is a source from blackstone's. i've pasted one snippet, but read on for more: <http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/ruleofthumb.html>
aahhhh, bitnet. :)
From: "Wm. E. Painter, Jr." <wpainter @ womenscol.stephens.edu> Subject: Lexis search - rule of thumb X-To: H-IDEAS @ uicvm.uic.edu To: Multiple recipients of list H-IDEAS <H-IDEAS @ UICVM.BITNET>
From: SMTP%"ktonella%pac-man.arcade.uiowa.edu @ uicvm.uic.edu" 28-APR-1994
I did a quick Lexis search for legal references on "rule of thumb" in relation to wife beating. I didn't have time for a really refined search but below are short relevant excerpts.
n86 The husband's right to discipline his wife has a long history at commonlaw, related to the concept of wives as chattel. For a review of the changing scope of the disciplinary prerogative at common law, see UNITED STATES COMM'N ON CIVIL RIGHTS, UNDER THE RULE OF THUMB: BATTERED WOMEN AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 14, 21 (1982), supra note 41, at 1-3; Eppler, supra note 13, at 791-93; Note, supra note 16, at 705.
34 Emory L.J. 855, *874
Historically, wife beating has been an acceptable practice both socially and legally. The right of a husband to physically chastise his wife was inherited from the British Common Law tradition which considered married people to be one person, specifically the husband, n91 and, which gave the husband who beat his wife immunity from prosecution. In Bradley v. State, n92 a Mississippi court articulated and adopted this form of immunity, holding that a husband should be able to moderately chastise his wife without subjecting himself to vexatious prosecution for assault and battery. Moderate chastisement was measured by the " rule of thumb" which allowed a husband to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb. n93 The societal basis for this legal acceptance of wife beating may be seen in the results of a survey conducted for [*875] the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention ofViolence, which found that twenty-five percent of college educated men interviewed felt that physical chastisement of a spouse was acceptable in some situations. n94
106 Harv. L. Rev. 1501, *1502
II. Historical Underpinnings of Wife Abuse When you see your wife commit an offense, don't rush at her with insults and violent blows . . . . Scold her sharply, bully and terrify her. And if this still doesn't work . . . take up a stick and beat her soundly, for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than to damage the soul and spare the body . . . . Then readily beat her, not in rage but out of charity and concern for her soul, so that the beating will redound to your merit and her good. n4
106 Harv. L. Rev. 1501, *1501
Domestic violence is not a new problem. History is replete with reports of domestic abuse, n11 and despite the community-wide repercussions of domestic violence, an adequate legal response has long been lacking. In fact, United States law condoned wife abuse and protected the right of men to beat their wives through the midnineteenth century. n12 In the late 1800s, shifting public attitudes prompted some states to eliminate explicit legal protection for batterers, and several instituted a range of punishments for abusive husbands. n13 Most early reform efforts, however, focused primarily on maintaining the family structure and failed to provide meaningful relief for the victims of domestic violence. n14 Indeed, until as recently as twenty-five years ago, battered women had few legal remedies available to them. n15
- - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - -
n11 See OKUN, supra note 1, at 2-6.
n12 See ANGELA BROWNE, WHEN BATTERED WOMEN KILL 165-67 (1987).
20 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 679, *681
n7 Id. ("For as he [the husband] is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or his children." (quoting 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *444)). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard T. Campbell | Internet : DCAMP @ UIC.EDU Department of Sociology M/C 312 | Phone (W): 312/413-3759 University of Illinois at Chicago | Phone (H): 708/386-2263 1007 W. Harrison St. | FAX : 312/996-5104 Chicago, IL 60607-7140 | BITNET : u08239 @ UICVM -------------------------------------------------------------------------