Please help me understand this Indian "law"

[Alexmahone]

Section 89 in the Indian Penal Code: This is basically the law that allows corporal punishment. You can find it at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1858333/.

Section 89 in The Indian Penal Code

89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian.—Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person: Provisos—Provided—
(First) — That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;
(Secondly) —That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmi­ty;
(Thirdly) — That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or griev­ous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
(Fourthly) —That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. Illustration A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon. Knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the child’s death. A is within the excep­tion, inasmuch as his object was the cure of the child.

It took me a couple of readings to understand what the first paragraph, which probably qualifies as the worst-written sentence in the history of the English language, was trying to say.

So if a parent hits her 10-year-old child (or 'insane' child) "in good faith for the benefit of the child", it's not an offence. But if a stranger hits the same child with the same expressed intent without the consent of the child's parents, that's an offence. Am I understanding this correctly? Does this make sense to anyone?

[Fireball]

Go ask a lawyer licensed to practice law in India. FFS

[The Valkyrie]

It's India. Where a woman protesting on the street about a series of gang rapes was gang raped and murdered.

Who understands their society and laws?

[Minimalist]

It's the "Beat The Shit Out Of Your Own Kids" Law.

Very popular in primitive cultures.

[Alexmahone]

Go ask a lawyer licensed to practice law in India. FFS

No, I don't want to waste $100.

[Seraphina]

You've lost your troll-y mojo with this thread, Alexmahone. I'm disappointed. Maybe you can do better with the next one.

-Teresa

[brewer]

Section 89 in the Indian Penal Code: This is basically the law that allows corporal punishment. You can find it at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1858333/.

---

Section 89 in The Indian Penal Code

89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian.—Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person: Provisos—Provided—
(First) — That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;
(Secondly) —That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmi­ty;
(Thirdly) — That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or griev­ous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
(Fourthly) —That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. Illustration A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon. Knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the child’s death. A is within the excep­tion, inasmuch as his object was the cure of the child.

It took me a couple of readings to understand what the first paragraph, which probably qualifies as the worst-written sentence in the history of the English language, was trying to say.

So if a parent hits her 10-year-old child (or 'insane' child) "in good faith for the benefit of the child", it's not an offence. But if a stranger hits the same child with the same expressed intent without the consent of the child's parents, that's an offence. Am I understanding this correctly? Does this make sense to anyone?

---

[chimp3]

It means they don't understand or give a shit about kids.

[DodosAreDead]

It's India.  Where a woman protesting on the street about a series of gang rapes was gang raped and murdered.

Who understands their society and laws?

Yes, there are huge problems here. The rape culture being one of them. That doesn't mean the entire society and all the laws are absurd, you know. It's a country of 1.3 BILLION people, which is practicing a successful democracy. It is, truly, the biggest democracy in the world. That's something that needs to be considered before dissing it. 

It's the "Beat The Shit Out Of Your Own Kids" Law.

Very popular in primitive cultures.

Ok this made me laugh because it's true. Not exactly a primitive culture, but yes, that's that law in a much more coherent sentence than the one in the Penal Code. 

It means they don't understand or give a shit about kids.

Ok, this is where you're completely wrong. The culture has always been one of respecting your elders, and elders in turn, frankly, disrespecting their own children. Is that wrong? Absolutely. Does that mean they don't understand or give a shit about kids? No. Not at all. It's a different culture, man. Kids are said to be the flowers in the garden of God. In a hugely religious country, that really means something, even if it's only something to laugh at for atheists. And I can assure you, as a kid that's grew up half in India and half in US, kids here are on the whole much happier and more content than in US. And no, the only people who hit their kids are parents/guardians. And that too, rarely. Except in slums, which is a different story altogether, and contrary to popular belief, not representative of the majority of the population.

[robvalue]