Purpose <p>Child physical abuse is a significant problem in the U.S., and the debate surrounding the use of corporal punishment to discipline children is complex. Yet, there is a dearth of research examining legal decision making in cases of child physical abuse involving corporal punishment. This study examined mock juror decision making in a case involving child physical abuse where a father was accused of spanking or using a paddle to discipline his son and charged with first- or third-degree abuse.</p> Method <p>Online participants (<i>N</i> = 219) took the role of mock jurors judging a case of child physical abuse.</p> Results <p>Jurors rendered more pro-victim judgments when the abuse involved a paddle (vs. spanking), and the defendant was charged with third- (vs. first-) degree abuse. Moreover, negative perceptions of the defendant (e.g., how violent he was perceived) explained the relation between punishment type and verdicts such that when the defendant used a paddle (vs. spanking), participants perceived the defendant more negatively, and in turn were more likely to vote guilty. Cognitive networks showed that when a paddle was used, jurors’ guilty verdicts were driven by their perception that the use of a paddle constituted abuse, whereas this was not the case when the victim was spanked.</p> Conclusions <p>Results have implications for how individuals conceptualize corporal punishment, offer insight for attorneys prosecuting child physical abuse cases, and contribute to the limited research examining child physical abuse in court.</p>