How far can a parent go before corporal punishment turns into abuse?

[MavsSuperFan]

Personally I am against corporal punishment, as I have seen studies that showed evidence against its effectiveness. Eg. Comparing the education, job success, earnings, likelihood of imprisonment, etc between children that were subject to corporal punishment and children that were not. Kids that were never beaten correlated with success more than kids that were beat.

Also in most European countries according to the encyclopedia Britannica its illegal to beat kids. Northern Europe has extremely low crime levels.

Most European countries have partially or completely banned the corporal punishment of children in schools and at home, in compliance with the European Social Charter—adopted in 1961 and revised in 1996—which protects children from physical abuse. The Council of Europe, an organization of nearly all European countries that promotes human rights and democracy on the continent, has sought to abolish the practice. The corporal punishment of children by parents or caregivers has also been banned in some non-European countries. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1989, forbids the physical abuse of children by parents or other caregivers. The convention has been ratified by all UN members except the United States and Somalia. By the early 21st century, more than 100 countries had also banned the corporal punishment of children in schools. See also flogging.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/138384/corporal-punishment

Also to me it seems like beating kids is more of an easy solution and an expression of anger.

Anyways, even I think choosing to beat your child should be legal. parents should be allowed to choose to use corporal punishment. But obviously there is a limit to when it becomes child abuse.

Obviously if your punishing your kid by burning them with cigarette butts you are committing child abuse, which is a crime.

I was wondering if you guys felt that depending on how much damage you do to a child, it should make certain actions illegal?

Eg. Using the AP example, if you hit a kid with a switch and do no damage it is discipline. If you do so and cut up their legs and scrotum, even if unintentionally is a crime. If you scarred your child's face you have abused your child.

Where do you guys draw the line between child abuse and discipline? Is physical damage a good measure of whether it was abuse or discipline?

[Akrazotile]

If the physical effects last beyond the day it's administered, it's prob abuse.

[poido123]

If the physical effects last beyond the day it's administered, it's prob abuse.


Exactly.

The problem lies with the individual carrying out the punishment.

A good smack from my parents never hurt me beyond the initial pain.

Look at our generation now. Full of selfish, entitled, social degenerates.

[joe]

Law wise, I think we have it about right. Putting aside any of my libertarian ideas, it seems the line between child abuse and discipline is right where society wants it. Could this stuff be worked out better without government? Could society/the free market find better solutions? Perhaps, I would have to think about it. But overall we are at least moving in the right direction.

Culturally on the other hand..

This whole idea that it is okay to hit your kids is bogus. Kids are the least able to defend themselves, and the most affected by negative life events... yet they are the only group we deem it okay to hit. Beat, even. Some people think it is the optimum strategy for raising a person. They are proud of it.

I think these people who say ''Well, I was hit as a kid and I turned out fine,'' are out of their minds.

1) Just because you (supposedly) came out fine, does not mean that everyone else would have. Everyone is different, people respond differently.

2) Just because you (supposedly) came out fine, does not mean your kid will come out fine. You hit your kid because it worked for you... but your kid is not you. He is only half of you genetically, and his culture and environment are radically different.

3) You need to make a distinction between light punishment hitting (like a smack on the hand, maybe a spanking) with abuse. If you are okay with spanking, I still disagree, but that is not the same as full on angry abuse. I dealt with an angry irrational abusive father. Do not conflate that type of person with spankings. I think people often lump those two groups together.

[poido123]

This whole idea that it is okay to hit your kids is bogus. Kids are the least able to defend themselves, and the most affected by negative life events... yet they are the only group we deem it okay to hit. Beat, even. Some people think it is the optimum strategy for raising a person. They are proud of it.

Law wise, I think we have it about right. Putting aside any of my libertarian beliefs, it seems the line between child abuse and discipline is right where society wants it. Could this stuff be worked out better without government? Could society/the free market find better solutions? Perhaps, I would have to think about it. But overall we are at least moving in the right direction.

I think these people who say ''Well, I was hit as a kid and I turned out fine,'' are out of their minds.

1) Just because you (supposedly) came out fine, does not mean that everyone else would have. Everyone is different, people respond differently.

2) Just because you (supposedly) came out fine, does not mean your kid will come out fine. You hit your kid because it worked for you... but your kid is not you. He is only half of you genetically, and his culture and environment are radically different.

3) You need to make a distinction between light punishment hitting (like a smack on the hand, maybe a spanking) with abuse. If you are okay with spanking, I still disagree, but that is not the same as full on angry abuse. I dealt with an angry irrational abusive father. Do not conflate that type of person with spankings.


Diddums.

My parents and their parents grew up with smacking and much worse. They turned out alright.

This "no smacking" world we are bringing them up in is giving kids too much power to be brats. The laws are handicapping parents from having any power to discipline their child.

You need to understand, not all kids will do what they are supposed to be with just words. You might be lucky and have kids that don't act up.

[joe]

Diddums.

My parents and their parents grew up with smacking and much worse. They turned out alright.

This "no smacking" world we are bringing them up in is giving kids too much power to be brats. The laws are handicapping parents from having any power to discipline their child.

You need to understand, not all kids will do what they are supposed to be with just words. You might be lucky and have kids that don't act up.

A lot of what you are saying is based on anecdote and nostalgia. Were there not bad kids in the 50s? Were there not rebels, 'greesers,' rape, or murder? Was bullying invented with this generation? Theft? Even when spanking was (anecdotally) more common, all of that still went on.

Furthermore.. even if spanking did drop, what did parents use to replace it? Maybe they used even less effective methods than spanking. Maybe there were other cultural factors at play. You can't just look at one variable and conclude that is why we are (supposedly) raising a nation of brats. A lot has changed since the days of our Mothers and Grandmothers.

Some things that have been proven: your early relationship with your primary caregiver can dramatically impact how secure you feel in the world. How loved you feel. How willing you are to trust and care for other people. How socially positive you will likely behave. Your level of anxiety, depression, and suicide rates. Abuse can easily swing a person towards those negative outcomes.

Again, the distinction needs to be made between strategic spanking (i.e., you broke a rule, therefore I will spank you within reason), and outright abuse. I am against spanking, but I am a lot more tolerant of it than abuse. Especially if you make it a point to explain to your kid why you spanked them. Hey, I spanked you because you broke that rule. That is decently understandable. Angrily snapping and smacking a kid because he is making too much noise, then going back to watching your TV show... not so much.

[Nanners]

If the physical effects last beyond the day it's administered, it's prob abuse.

yep

i dont like corporal punishment, seems like a really lazy way to raise a child.

[poido123]

A lot of what you are saying is based on anecdote and nostalgia. Were there not bad kids in the 50s? Were there not rebels, 'greesers,' rape, or murder? Was bullying invented with this generation? Theft? Even when spanking was (anecdotally) more common, all of that still went on.

Furthermore.. even if spanking did drop, what did parents use to replace it? Maybe they used even less effective methods than spanking. Maybe there were other cultural factors at play. You can't just look at one variable and conclude that is why we are (supposedly) raising a nation of brats. A lot has changed since the days of our Mothers and Grandmothers.

Some things that have been proven: your early relationship with your primary caregiver can dramatically impact how secure you feel in the world. How loved you feel. How willing you are to trust and care for other people. How socially positive you will likely behave. Your level of anxiety, depression, and suicide rates. Abuse can easily swing a person towards those negative outcomes.

Again, the distinction needs to be made between strategic spanking (i.e., you broke a rule, therefore I will spank you within reason), and outright abuse. I am against spanking, but I am a lot more tolerant of it than abuse. Especially if you make it a point to explain to your kid why you spanked them. Hey, I spanked you because you broke that rule. That is decently understandable. Angrily snapping and smacking a kid because he is making too much noise, then going back to watching your TV show... not so much.


Big difference is they had a lot more respect and morals.

Kids need to know right from wrong. They need to understand a greater power than them. If they are allowed to do things without punishment, it only promotes selfishness and unaccountability. The world is not a fair and happy place. Smacking is the first introduction to that.

I think you're assuming abuse is smacking. Not smacking is a form of abuse. That kid will grow up to be unprepared and selfish. Abuse is willingly trying to hurt your child to the point where they are damaged.

I don't support that. I support controlled smacking.

[MavsSuperFan]

Big difference is they had a lot more respect and morals.

Kids need to know right from wrong. They need to understand a greater power than them. If they are allowed to do things without punishment, it only promotes selfishness and unaccountability. The world is not a fair and happy place. Smacking is the first introduction to that.

I think you're assuming abuse is smacking. Not smacking is a form of abuse. That kid will grow up to be unprepared and selfish. Abuse is willingly trying to hurt your child to the point where they are damaged.

I don't support that. I support controlled smacking.
You can punish people without physically hitting them. I think its more important to try to teach kids what you believe is right and wrong, rather than scare them into doing what you believe is right.



Not smacking is a form of abuse. That kid will grow up to be unprepared and selfish.

There are a lot of studies that contradict that.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201309/research-spanking-it-s-bad-all-kids

I remember reading something about how contrary to what you are saying a greater percentage of US inmates were corporeally punished regularly growing up than the general population and that kids who weren't hit growing up tended to achieve greater success, in terms of finances and education.

http://www.naturalchild.org/research/corporal_punishment.html

After Effects of Physical Punishment

Adrenalin output increases sharply during fear, anger and physical punishment. When this is prolonged or often repeated, the endocrine balance fails to return to baseline. The victim becomes easily angered and prone to poor impulse control and spontaneous violent outbursts.

Educational achievement is affected both directly and indirectly. Studies of prisoners, delinquents, school drop-outs, college freshmen and successful professionals are compared in the following composite report.

http://i.imgur.com/thjqixR.png

Taking part in this survey were: 200 psychologists who filled out anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr. Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.

actual studies showed that hitting was counterproductive to raising successful kids and keeping them out of jail


Only Children

Now, in 1987, physical punishment is considered too severe for felons, murderers, criminals of all kinds and ages, including juvenile delinquents, too demeaning for soldiers, sailors, servants and spouses. But it remains legal and acceptable for children who are innocent of any crime.

The reasoning behind this curious discrepancy has been the belief that physical punishment will prevent the child from becoming a criminal. The frequent headlines: "Rising Tide of Juvenile Delinquency" usually attribute the situation to a decline of the use of corporal punishment in schools and homes. "Permissiveness," or letting the child do as he pleases, assumed by some to be the only alternative to hitting, is pervasively believed to be the primary cause of anti-social behavior. In the good old days, it is said, "old fashioned discipline" kept children in line. There was very little crime. Harmony reigned. Or did it?

The Truth About the "Good Old Days"

There are no reliable statistics on the extent of crime a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. From all reports, however, crime in the U.S. was extensive, especially violent crime and crimes among the young. The good citizens of 19th century America were also alarmed. They looked back to the good old days of simple rural life, before the growth of the cities. The crowded and crime-ridden Eastern cities were contrasted unfavorably with the "wide open spaces" of the West -- the West, that is, of Jesse James and Billy the Kid!

Discipline in the one room schoolhouses was violent. Often the teacher engaged in a bare knuckle fight with the biggest student as a warning to the others of what would happen to them if they provoked his wrath. Horace Mann, the Father of American education, fulminated against the number of floggings per day, sometimes more than the number of scholars. Most of our great grandparents were satisfied with a fourth grade education and eighth grade was the end for all but five percent. The lawless mountain men of the Old West were recruited from the 14-year olds who high tailed it after one thrashing too many. Bands of outlaws stole horses, and plagued the defenseless. Public hangings and Iynchings were commonplace while pickpockets worked the crowds. Only the militia and the sheriff's posse maintained any semblance of order.

Yet the myth remains that only woodshed discipline in early youth keeps boys from a life of crime, and that respect for authority is promoted only by painful procedures that induce fear and resentment of authority.

What is the truth? Let's take a good hard look at the facts about the effects of corporal punishment on crime.

It makes some sense when you think about it. you teach kids that if they are stronger and attack others, they can get others to do as they wish.

[fpliii]

Should be zero tolerance IMO. My initial thought is that if you're not capable of raising children without laying a hand on them at any point, you're not fit to be a parent. Some of the studies Mavs is citing seem to back this up.

That being said, I don't think spanking a kid (within reason) is going to cause major issues. Smacking, lashing, beating, etc. is ludicrous. I was never subjected to any physical discipline/abuse, and feel sorry for those who were.

[joe]

Big difference is they had a lot more respect and morals.

Kids need to know right from wrong. They need to understand a greater power than them. If they are allowed to do things without punishment, it only promotes selfishness and unaccountability. The world is not a fair and happy place. Smacking is the first introduction to that.

I think you're assuming abuse is smacking. Not smacking is a form of abuse. That kid will grow up to be unprepared and selfish. Abuse is willingly trying to hurt your child to the point where they are damaged.

I don't support that. I support controlled smacking.

Respect needs to be earned. Teaching your kid respect by making him afraid of you is lazy parenting 101. I wouldn't want to raise a kid who just blindly had 'respect.' When they get smacked by a bully in middle school, should they respect that bully?

The world is less moral you say, but yet crimes rate is down from the 50's.. murder rates are down.. younger people are more tolerant of blacks, gays. Meanwhile the baby boomer generation/government went how much in debt and expected their kids to pay it off? Where is the moral there?

Speaking of morals, religion has also declined in the US. Could that not be the reason for lower morals? Kids watch more television, could that be the reason? There are a lot of things that have changed. What makes you pinpoint the lack of 'controlled smacking' as the reason?

[poido123]

You can punish people without physically hitting them. I think its more important to try to teach kids what you believe is right and wrong, rather than scare them into doing what you believe is right.




There are a lot of studies that contradict that.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201309/research-spanking-it-s-bad-all-kids

I remember reading something about how contrary to what you are saying a greater percentage of US inmates were corporeally punished regularly growing up than the general population and that kids who weren't hit growing up tended to achieve greater success, in terms of finances and education.


I think psychological damage can be argued if you are suggesting "verbal techniques" to replace smacking.

A quick smack is enough to snap them out of their behaviour if done sparingly.

I do encourage a warning of a smack or punishment first, if they continue to act up well then they know its coming.

There are kids who do not need corporal punishment. However, for average to extreme kids, they will need more than verbal techniques to overcome their bad behaviour.

[poido123]

Look at the world around you?

Do you not see selfish, unaccountable people wherever you go?

My parents and grandparents generation had a lot more morals and better behaved people in general.

That wasn't achieved by avoiding smacking.

[MavsSuperFan]

I think psychological damage can be argued if you are suggesting "verbal techniques" to replace smacking.

A quick smack is enough to snap them out of their behaviour if done sparingly.

I do encourage a warning of a smack or punishment first, if they continue to act up well then they know its coming.

There are kids who do not need corporal punishment. However, for average to extreme kids, they will need more than verbal techniques to overcome their bad behaviour.
http://i.imgur.com/thjqixR.png
Taking part in this survey were: 200 psychologists who filled out anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr. Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.

Seems like getting hit as a kid is counterproductive if the goal is raising successful adults.

[poido123]

http://i.imgur.com/thjqixR.png
Taking part in this survey were: 200 psychologists who filled out anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr. Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.

Seems like getting hit as a kid is counterproductive if the goal is raising successful adults.


Only that psychologists tend to have bias towards a very conservative and soft approach on anything.

The data doesn't reflect an accurate account of these incidents. These are the opinions and accounts of college students who all have a different view on excessive smacking and what constitutes a fair punishment.

i could say to you that I have been beaten and pulverised by a wooden spoon and belt growing up. the reality is these two things were used on me humanely in a humane and non-excessive manner.

I hope that makes sense?

[Trollsmasher]

don't overdo it, no lasting effects beyond the imminent pain

some level of corporal punishment is important - if we weren't raising *******, we would not be on the brink of societal collapse

one has to take those psychological studies with a grain of salt - I for example doubt they took in account the economic situation of the subjects growing up

[MavsSuperFan]

Only that psychologists tend to have bias towards a very conservative and soft approach on anything.

The data doesn't reflect an accurate account of these incidents. These are the opinions and accounts of college students who all have a different view on excessive smacking and what constitutes a fair punishment.

i could say to you that I have been beaten and pulverised by a wooden spoon and belt growing up. the reality is these two things were used on me humanely in a humane and non-excessive manner.

I hope that makes sense?
Parents should be allowed to raise their children as they see fit as long as they arent doing physical damage.

Im curious now that the details of AP are out, do you think what he did was a crime?

http://sandrarose.com/images20/adrian-peterson-son-injuries-446x337.jpg
http://tribthegame.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/adrianpeterson-wcco.jpg
http://api.ning.com/files/tBTKCkFUMvN5L1yQ83yOWf5ibSzODGpTHAnHSM1svrrzuHFajj KGZjPEFGVOcfXhRJUmjb16dqoVFgMb7guysNDcO9ISLP8J/PetersonAbuser.jpg
http://api.ning.com/files/tBTKCkFUMvNQ5LE6hDf-I145eEZ4JZn8PbH1WSboY1eQdrgPPw1hfE7GRGWib63ojXdfRL 3BeAsdZSTlu0wSioGNpXW-5yzK/Bxm58MCUAAYF6F.jpg

Can we all agree that cutting a four year old boy's scrotum and a scarring a 4 year old boy's face is way beyond what is legal?

according to the cops and doctor, adrian's son told them that he was scared of talking about his injuries cause he didnt want to get hit in the face. If you are beating your kids to an extent that you feel needs to be hidden from cops, that to me is wrong.

[poido123]

Absolutely.

Anything that creates an open wound is excessive IMO.

We all know what a smack is right? A small red mark that lasts maybe half an hour.

Enough to hurt, but not enough to damage someone mentally.

[MavsSuperFan]

Absolutely.

Anything that creates an open wound is excessive IMO.

We all know what a smack is right? A small red mark that lasts maybe half an hour.

Enough to hurt, but not enough to damage someone mentally.
Ok :cheers:

[joe]

Absolutely.

Anything that creates an open wound is excessive IMO.

We all know what a smack is right? A small red mark that lasts maybe half an hour.

Enough to hurt, but not enough to damage someone mentally.

I am not in your house to know what you do. But how exactly do you know you aren't doing mental damage? You cannot see mental scars. Often in therapy, it is the things a person does not even remember that have huge effects on their mental state. Events from when they were 3, 4 years old, shaping their world view for years and years to come. Kids being hit when they were little, not understanding why. Feeling more fear around their parents than other emotions. I am not saying you are unquestionably doing mental damage. However, there is a line that you are walking anytime you smack a kid, and with every kid, that line is in a different place. And you will never know if you may have crossed that line. The kid might not even know.

Furthermore, I have a Dad who, to this day, still denies any abuse. Be honest with yourself. My Dad sees his parenting as having been full of love and care. My memory of it is a screaming maniac, being choked mercilessly, constant threat and intimidation. I see parents in my family doing things they deem 'no big deal,' that I guarantee through the kids eyes is absolutely terrifying. My brother would give these intense angry spankings to his daughter. I cringed at it. He looked at it as normal punishment. She was being too loud, wouldn't listen, on and on. To me I truly believe those spankings have great potential to be scarring moments for her. Then again, every person is different. Maybe she won't react that way. But it goes the other way too..

[Jailblazers7]

I am not in your house to know what you do. But how exactly do you know you aren't doing mental damage? You cannot see mental scars. Often in therapy, it is the things a person does not even remember that have huge effects on their mental state. Events from when they were 3, 4 years old, shaping their world view for years and years to come. Kids being hit when they were little, not understanding why. Feeling more fear around their parents than other emotions. I am not saying you are unquestionably doing mental damage. However, there is a line that you are walking anytime you smack a kid, and with every kid, that line is in a different place. And you will never know if you may have crossed that line. The kid might not even know.

Furthermore, I have a Dad who, to this day, still denies any abuse. Be honest with yourself. My Dad sees his parenting as having been full of love and care. My memory of it is a screaming maniac, being choked mercilessly, constant threat and intimidation. I see parents in my family doing things they deem 'no big deal,' that I guarantee through the kids eyes is absolutely terrifying. My brother would give these intense angry spankings to his daughter. I cringed at it. He looked at it as normal punishment. She was being too loud, wouldn't listen, on and on. To me I truly believe those spankings have great potential to be scarring moments for her. Then again, every person is different. Maybe she won't react that way. But it goes the other way too..

Yeah, I completely agree about the intensity of physical punishment in the psychology of a child. My dad gave really tame spankings compared to what a lot of kids received but it still was intense for me. I can remember feeling straight up terror when I would close my eyes and remember the hitting and my dad yelling after being punished. It can really reverberate in a kids mind. I can't even imagine what it would be like if I experienced a really serious instance of abuse.

[poido123]

Yeah, I completely agree about the intensity of physical punishment in the psychology of a child. My dad gave really tame spankings compared to what a lot of kids received but it still was intense for me. I can remember feeling straight up terror when I would close my eyes and remember the hitting and my dad yelling after being punished. It can really reverberate in a kids mind. I can't even imagine what it would be like if I experienced a really serious instance of abuse.


What you aren't understanding is, your own thought process led you to thinking that smack meant something more than what it was intended for.

You will be better equipped for the world, if you know that pain and consequence is very real and normal.

What are you teaching a kid if you are sheltering them from pain and consequence? That the world has no pain and consequence? Hmmm

[MavsSuperFan]

What you aren't understanding is, your own thought process led you to thinking that smack meant something more than what it was intended for.

You will be better equipped for the world, if you know that pain and consequence is very real and normal.

What are you teaching a kid if you are sheltering them from pain and consequence? That the world has no pain and consequence? Hmmm
You could make the argument that corporal punishment teaches that might makes right.

That you can beat someone into doing what you want.

[poido123]

I am not in your house to know what you do. But how exactly do you know you aren't doing mental damage? You cannot see mental scars. Often in therapy, it is the things a person does not even remember that have huge effects on their mental state. Events from when they were 3, 4 years old, shaping their world view for years and years to come. Kids being hit when they were little, not understanding why. Feeling more fear around their parents than other emotions. I am not saying you are unquestionably doing mental damage. However, there is a line that you are walking anytime you smack a kid, and with every kid, that line is in a different place. And you will never know if you may have crossed that line. The kid might not even know.

Furthermore, I have a Dad who, to this day, still denies any abuse. Be honest with yourself. My Dad sees his parenting as having been full of love and care. My memory of it is a screaming maniac, being choked mercilessly, constant threat and intimidation. I see parents in my family doing things they deem 'no big deal,' that I guarantee through the kids eyes is absolutely terrifying. My brother would give these intense angry spankings to his daughter. I cringed at it. He looked at it as normal punishment. She was being too loud, wouldn't listen, on and on. To me I truly believe those spankings have great potential to be scarring moments for her. Then again, every person is different. Maybe she won't react that way. But it goes the other way too..


Here lies the problem of most people who complain of smacking as a form of discipline. They are damaged from abuse and don't want any form of physical pain inflicted on their children. It's understandable.

My girlfriend opposes smacking in most circumstances, but understands that if I was to smack a child, it would be only to correct a disturbing behaviour and not a ritualistic smacking which only serves the smacker's ego or powertrip.

Like women's rights movements, we have had a big swing in how we raise children.

[Jailblazers7]

What you aren't understanding is, your own thought process led you to thinking that smack meant something more than what it was intended for.

You will be better equipped for the world, if you know that pain and consequence is very real and normal.

What are you teaching a kid if you are sheltering them from pain and consequence? That the world has no pain and consequence? Hmmm

Does it have to be physical pain and consequences from a beating tho? I'm sure a parent can come up with something a little more creative to teach their child a lesson. Most of the time my dad resorted to other means of punishment. Make the kid do some manual labor or something a little more constructive than simply beating on him. Corporal punishment might teach a kid that physical dominance is integral to life which isn't exactly what I want my kids learning.

[ZenMaster]

Aren't there some studies that say people who defer to fighting and violence are the ones who most often where beat as kids?

It makes too much sense for this not to be true I think, if you teach someone at a young age that when someone does something wrong you beat them they will themselves end up doing the same stuff.

[MavsSuperFan]

Aren't there some studies that say people who defer to fighting and violence are the ones who most often where beat as kids?

It makes too much sense for this not to be true I think, if you teach someone at a young age that when someone does something wrong you beat them they will themselves end up doing the same stuff.
There are definitely studies that show that inmates in america were subjected to corporal punishment more often than the general population.

And people who earn high incomes were subject to corporal punishment less than they general population.

All evidence I have seen in support of corporal punishment is anecdotal

[poido123]

Aren't there some studies that say people who defer to fighting and violence are the ones who most often where beat as kids?

It makes too much sense for this not to be true I think, if you teach someone at a young age that when someone does something wrong you beat them they will themselves end up doing the same stuff.


I'd think lack of ANY discipline will cause that.

[ZenMaster]

I'd think lack of ANY discipline will cause that.

To me it's a lot more plauseable that the people who resort to violence have been beaten as kids than having had NO discipline done to them at all.

Beating kids doesn't solve anything that could not be solved otherwise, it just makes them terrified of you and builds mental scars.

[poido123]

To me it's a lot more plauseable that the people who resort to violence have been beaten as kids than having had NO discipline done to them at all.

Beating kids doesn't solve anything that could not be solved otherwise, it just makes them terrified of you and builds mental scars.


Violence is in our human nature. Some people are capable of far worse crimes whether they had a good upbringing or not. Lack of discipline and harsh disciplines are the root of the cause, not discipline in the simple sense of giving a child a due smack.

You are now seeing the generation of kids with ZERO discipline. Bashing elders, stealing and drug use has increased, kids who don't give a f.ck about others, kids committing far more shocking crimes, want everything now etc etc. Just a total society breakdown.

Needs to be a balance. Excessive smacking no. No smacking is no.a little smacking and a little verbal discipline is I think the best remedy.

[ZenMaster]

Violence is in our human nature. Some people are capable of far worse crimes whether they had a good upbringing or not. Lack of discipline and harsh disciplines are the root of the cause, not discipline in the simple sense of giving a child a due smack.

You are now seeing the generation of kids with ZERO discipline. Bashing elders, stealing and drug use has increased, kids who don't give a f.ck about others, kids committing far more shocking crimes, want everything now etc etc. Just a total society breakdown.

Needs to be a balance. Excessive smacking no. No smacking is no.a little smacking and a little verbal discipline is I think the best remedy.

Violence is in YOUR human nature, not everyone elses.

To me you are just speaking in generalities and anecdotes. Sure some people will commit worse crimes whether they had a good upbringing or not, that is because they are crazy in some form or way. Those people do not matter in this discussion because as you say, there is something wrong with them either way.

You want to place the blame for an enire generation on the "fact" that their parents did not beat them in their upbringing? That's interesting and I could argue a bunch of other factors in that regard.
Also, how do you know how many of the kids you would consider failures not to have been beaten as a kid?

There is no such thing as a right amount of beating or "due smack". It's all relative and what you consider the right amount someone else will think is too little or too much. It is also dependant on the person you are beating, some can take more punishment than others without being mentally affected negatively. The problem is when you're beating a 6 year old he or her can never give feedback as to if he thought the amount of beating he took was appropriate.

Then there are all the side questions, for example in regards to split up families being brought together and different members have either a step dad or step mom. Is it OK for a step dad to beat his new wifes kids?

I know you will defend this till you die because you where beaten as a kid and beat your own kids(or will when the time comes).

[poido123]

Violence is in YOUR human nature, not everyone elses.

To me you are just speaking in generalities and anecdotes. Sure some people will commit worse crimes whether they had a good upbringing or not, that is because they are crazy in some form or way. Those people do not matter in this discussion because as you say, there is something wrong with them either way.

You want to place the blame for an enire generation on the "fact" that their parents did not beat them in their upbringing? That's interesting and I could argue a bunch of other factors in that regard.
Also, how do you know how many of the kids you would consider failures not to have been beaten as a kid?

There is no such thing as a right amount of beating or "due smack". It's all relative and what you consider the right amount someone else will think is too little or too much. It is also dependant on the person you are beating, some can take more punishment than others without being mentally affected negatively. The problem is when you're beating a 6 year old he or her can never give feedback as to if he thought the amount of beating he took was appropriate.

Then there are all the side questions, for example in regards to split up families being brought together and different members have either a step dad or step mom. Is it OK for a step dad to beat his new wifes kids?

I know you will defend this till you die because you where beaten as a kid and beat your own kids(or will when the time comes).


I never preach "Beat". Beating is someone closed fist beating you or inflicting harm where an open wound is caused or they are really trying to hurt you maliciously.

A smack. You know what a smack is?

So let's say you were beaten or smacked as a kid. Why did you decide to not beat your child now? If you say that smacking promotes violence and is passed onto kids, then why won't you smack your child?

WTF is this shit? Do we get a calculator and an abacuss and start monitoring the impact and follow through of every little smack? This world tries too hard to fix things that aint broke sometimes...

I can't answer the smacking of previous marriage kids. I'd say that's up to the parent of those kids.

[Ass Dan]

Personally I am against corporal punishment, as I have seen studies that showed evidence against its effectiveness. Eg. Comparing the education, job success, earnings, likelihood of imprisonment, etc between children that were subject to corporal punishment and children that were not. Kids that were never beaten correlated with success more than kids that were beat.

Also in most European countries according to the encyclopedia Britannica its illegal to beat kids. Northern Europe has extremely low crime levels.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/138384/corporal-punishment

Also to me it seems like beating kids is more of an easy solution and an expression of anger.

Anyways, even I think choosing to beat your child should be legal. parents should be allowed to choose to use corporal punishment. But obviously there is a limit to when it becomes child abuse.

Obviously if your punishing your kid by burning them with cigarette butts you are committing child abuse, which is a crime.

I was wondering if you guys felt that depending on how much damage you do to a child, it should make certain actions illegal?

Eg. Using the AP example, if you hit a kid with a switch and do no damage it is discipline. If you do so and cut up their legs and scrotum, even if unintentionally is a crime. If you scarred your child's face you have abused your child.

Where do you guys draw the line between child abuse and discipline? Is physical damage a good measure of whether it was abuse or discipline?


Its 2014, people who abuse children and leave society to deal with the aftermath once the abused kids grow up should be thrown in jail.

If you cannot control your kids, get help from a relative or a professional.

[ZenMaster]

I never preach "Beat". Beating is someone closed fist beating you or inflicting harm where an open wound is caused or they are really trying to hurt you maliciously.

A smack. You know what a smack is?

So let's say you were beaten or smacked as a kid. Why did you decide to not beat your child now? If you say that smacking promotes violence and is passed onto kids, then why won't you smack your child?

WTF is this shit? Do we get a calculator and an abacuss and start monitoring the impact and follow through of every little smack? This world tries too hard to fix things that aint broke sometimes...

I can't answer the smacking of previous marriage kids. I'd say that's up to the parent of those kids.

Beating is defined as: a punishment or assault in which the victim is hit repeatedly per google definitions.

You are talking in your own definitions of what a beating is, to me it's when you hit someone more than once.

I can only guess as to why people who themselves where beaten would not beat their own kids. Maybe it's because they read something smart on the subject, has a spouse who does not want it as her herself was not beaten, or they could be remembering how much they hated it themselves.
I was never beaten as a kid so I don't know. What I do know is that my step dad grabbed me very hard a few times when I was around 13-14 I think. I also remember thinking about just how much I wanted to jam a knife in his stomach for it. I learned some good lessons from that man growing up, but being physical with kids is not one of them.

It is very noble that you want to give the impression that you have found the perfect balance between beating kids vs other types of punishment. But I am sure that everyone who beats their in any degree believes this for themselves.

[poido123]

Its 2014, people who abuse children and leave society to deal with the aftermath once the abused kids grow up should be thrown in jail.

If you cannot control your kids, get help from a relative or a professional.


I see people's interpretation of "beating" and "discipline" as the bigger problem.

If we can't get that right, we will have good parents losing their children over an innocent smack and drug users who never hit their kids keeping them.

What in fact you are creating, is an environment where kids have parents rule in a household. Empowering kids who are not equipped to handle such power creates a kid who thinks they are invincible.

[ZenMaster]

I see people's interpretation of "beating" and "discipline" as the bigger problem.

If we can't get that right, we will have good parents losing their children over an innocent smack and drug users who never hit their kids keeping them.

What in fact you are creating, is an environment where kids have parents rule in a household. Empowering kids who are not equipped to handle such power creates a kid who thinks they are invincible.

Good parents loosing kids and drug dealers getting to keep theirs... Good job projecting extremes and making sure that it's "all the others fault" and certainly not the guy who "beats his kids the right way because it's just a smack".

Personally I believe that if you have to give physical punishment to your kids it is because you're not smart enough to get your point across. Because surely no one would hit another person if they could avoid it, unless of course violence is in your nature.

[MadeFromDust]

Apparently can't leave cuts or bruises. :rolleyes:

[MavsSuperFan]

Apparently can't leave cuts or bruises. :rolleyes:
so you think what AP did was appropriate?
Including scarring his son's face?
Including the cuts on his other son's scrotum?

[poido123]

Good parents loosing kids and drug dealers getting to keep theirs... Good job projecting extremes and making sure that it's "all the others fault" and certainly not the guy who "beats his kids the right way because it's just a smack".

Personally I believe that if you have to give physical punishment to your kids it is because you're not smart enough to get your point across. Because surely no one would hit another person if they could avoid it, unless of course violence is in your nature.


So it's my intelligence as to why I smack my kids? That's a good one :cheers:

You don't need to over think this. People are so good at overreacting to changes and events, which is why you(damaged from abuse)hold such a rigid theory on people smacking their kids.

Still waiting on how you explain a dad who was hit as a kid, decides not to hit his own children. I thought child abuse is passed on and systemic? :oldlol:

[ZenMaster]

So it's my intelligence as to why I smack my kids? That's a good one :cheers:

You don't need to over think this. People are so good at overreacting to changes and events, which is why you(damaged from abuse)hold such a rigid theory on people smacking their kids.

Still waiting on how you explain a dad who was hit as a kid, decides not to hit his own children. I thought child abuse is passed on and systemic? :oldlol:


"People are good at overreacting to changes and events".. That's pretty good comming from a guy who just claimed a downfall in society is due to parents not hitting their kids anymore..

Child abuse is probably passed on, I do believe that is proven. You want to be extreme because it fits your point, but you should know there is never a 100% rate on things like these. I already gave three possible reasons though as to why someone who was beaten as a child would perhaps not doing as parents themselves.

[poido123]

You realize society is better now than ever before right dum dum?

And it will just continue to get better

Dumb fvk parents not hitting their kids will be one of the ways it gets better


Thanks Cactus Sa...I mean Macho Man :D

[joe]

I never preach "Beat". Beating is someone closed fist beating you or inflicting harm where an open wound is caused or they are really trying to hurt you maliciously.

A smack. You know what a smack is?

So let's say you were beaten or smacked as a kid. Why did you decide to not beat your child now? If you say that smacking promotes violence and is passed onto kids, then why won't you smack your child?

WTF is this shit? Do we get a calculator and an abacuss and start monitoring the impact and follow through of every little smack? This world tries too hard to fix things that aint broke sometimes...

I can't answer the smacking of previous marriage kids. I'd say that's up to the parent of those kids.

It has been proven in past studies that kids who see violence at home are more likely to use violence in their social interactions at school. I think it is also perfectly possible for someone to have the exact opposite reaction- I hate being hit so much, I will never hit someone. These two outcomes both shine negatively on the parent, in my opinion.

[InfiniteBaskets]

I think some kids have a natural inclination to act up in a disrespectful way. Not all, in fact not even the majority.

A select few act up because they don't get their way and I don't think introducing a negative reinforcement is unreasonable so long as you're not over-doing it.

I used to be a real pain in the ass as a kid. If my parents took away my gameboy for misbehaving, I'd start screaming my head off and throwing a fit.

If I yell, I figured two things can happen. I will either get my gameboy back, or not get it back. If I don't yell or start bugging my parents, I for sure won't get my gameboy back. So I yelled, with some potential upside and no downside.

That is until I got spanked for acting up and realized it wasn't worth it. At the time if my parents had talked to me, as a 5 year old, about respecting other people and not causing headaches on a plane/train/library/store etc... I doubt I would have listened.

Spanking would have been most effective. I suppose we could replace spanking with some other immediate negative reinforcement, but what other immediate options are there that are MORE acceptable than spanking? Remote electric shock like those in obedience studies done to animals? :oldlol: Perhaps a small smack on the wrist? Maybe sit me down, tie me to a chair, gag my mouth, and put on c-span for a few hours would have done the trick.

[RidonKs]

great thread

out of curiosity, how many of you spend much time with children on a regular basis? lots of interesting perspectives in this thread and there is definitely more than enough references to studies people have read, applications of philosophy, legal standards, moral standards, etc etc etc

based on your adult experiences with children, how far COULD corporal punishment go and under what specific circumstances could it best achieve its desired ends?

the other side of the coin in this discussion is what happens when you change the word "corporal" to something else liiiiike..... psychological or mental or subconscious. basically the starting line for driving somebody insane.

what a light spank is to corporal punishment, being grounded (which is a funny phrase never really thought of it before) is to psychological punishment.

the reason these two concepts are different sides of the same coin is because they inevitably converge. once it reaches a certain level of intensity, and possibly even from the get go as jailblazers described, physical torture will leave scars that relentlessly plague a psyche.

my final point is that you don't necessarily need physical violence, corporal punishment in other words, to leave those sorts of scars.

and so, the issue is actually remarkably complex... which you wouldn't think it would be considering standard legal or philosophical opinion which is "dont hit your kids" and the standard cultural response which is "well everyone hits their kids" and then we say "oh well" and leave it at that... even though everybody seems to know its wrong lol

[RidonKs]

It's not complex

Don't hit kids dum dum
:cheers: :violin: