I’m sure this topic has probably already done to death on these boards: children, parents and corporal punishment.
My question may be a little different: Is corporal punishment of children ever justified?
I’m sure there have been many times when parents just feel like smacking the little b*stards. But does the pain it inflicts really lead to more good than bad? Does it make better citizens? And, indeed, is every case the same?
In Europe, they have banned corporal punishment. And I don’t think I need a cite to show you they have much less crime than we do. Do they maybe know something we don’t?
I happen to live in Sweden, which became the first country to ban corporal punishment in 1974. Even mentioning the topic or joking about it is a big no-no here.
I think the crime rates - corporal punishment connection is a bit of a stretch. There are many factors that separate Europe and the USA, not just corporal punishment. However, I do think that a kid is more likely to become a socially healthy human being if he/she is NOT subjected to physical violence. It seems straightforward to me, really
As the father of a 5 yr/old I firmly believe there’s nothing wrong with a little smack now and again.
Just a couple of grams, mind, to get them off to sleep in the evenings.
I’m not trying to justify this as a reason for corporal punishment, but I wonder what the comparison is to today’s soldier (the non spanking kind) to yesterday’s soldier. (The spanked)
Was yesterdays soldier more capable (mentaly) of handling combat situations?
Or to put it more bluntly: Are children who grew up with corporal punishment LESS afraid of getting their ass kicked than the kids of today are?
A generation or two back, everyone spanked their children, and today’s unspanked kids aren’t noticeably better off. It’s just a different child-rearing style, not abuse.
Not everyone; neither set of my grandparents spanked any of their children ever, only one of them got spanked as a child (once). Two of my great-grandparents had parents with “long hands”, and she’s the one who spanked that once; he was mad as all get-go when he found out (ok, so one of the reasons you fled home at 13 was your mother’s “corrective beatings”, so when you get mad at your kid you spank him… very logical, there).
I think a swat here and there, especially when they’re to young to reason with may be alright. The point isn’t to cause pain or injury, it’s for emphasis, which hardly even puts it the corporal punishment category.
With some kids loud words get old quickly, and they need more emphasis. This is really arguing around the edge of the issue though. Causing pain as a means of discipline will be counter-productive long term.
We never once spanked our kid growing up, just didn’t think that that was the proper way for her to understand the difference between right and wrong. Instead if necessary we’d explain what we thought was proper and make sure she understood and agreed. I think emplying that several times early prevented the necessity of many corporal punishments later.
Admittedly I’ve been tempted with some other rowdy kids misbehaving to forgo the quiet discussion and give a little hellion a swift swat across the behind. But I think that’s more for the benefit of the swatter than the kid themselves.
I feel for those parents for whom no punishment type provides the desired result. That’s got to be really frustrating over time and eventually create a bit of despair. I might not agree when I see them spank, but then neither did I have to walk in the shoes that got them to that point.
What do you mean by “justified?” Everyone seems to be addressing the effectiveness, which has been well studied. From everything thing I have read the best that can be said about is if done correctly (right age, limited amount, correct circumstances), it can be as effective as other methods.
Justified is something else. Not does it work to correct behavior, but is it deserved.
I’ve never spanked a child and never will. Apart from finding the practice repugnant, I think it’s wrong to hit people unless necessary to protect yourself or another, and even wronger to hit someone smaller than yourself; and I could not in conscience hit a child but still maintain that the child should not hit others.
That being said, I do know some loving parents who spank, and I do not think they are child abusers, nor have their kids suffered any ill effects that I’m aware of.
But long ago when I worked in juvenile court, and saw abused kids and parents who at least said they had done nothing wrong, I would ponder whether a law that prohibited corporal punishment might not be a good idea.
So many of the abusive parents simply saw it as their right to hit their kid for whatever reason they saw fit; I’m guessing most of them did not start off with the intention to become torturers, attempted murderers or even murderers of their own children. But once they started things escalated for whatever reason–perhaps that the first blow didn’t achieve the desired result, perhaps because they were sadists and simply discovered they liked injuring children. I just don’t know.
I guess this is a bit of a hijack but I wonder whether the line between corporal punishment and abuse is one that too many people will cross, so often causing serious injury or even death of a child, so that a clearcut prohibition might be the best way to protect kids.
To me it is basically the nuclear option. Kept at the back in case all else fails.
That being said, like nuclear weapons, if you have to rely on spanking, you’re a bad parent.
I remember a few years back an article on the ‘damage’ that spanking could do. The trouble with the article straight off was that they were basing it on kids who got spanked 4-5 times a week or more. :eek: Um, YEAH, that’s abuse. Pretty sure that getting spanked once, or even once every couple of months, isn’t going to turn you into Dexter.
