Spanking: a reality check
Mon, 2008-06-23 06:38
#1
N.Beltov
Spanking: a reality check
Mon, 2008-06-23 06:38
#2
N.Beltov
I thought I'd start a thread that actually seriously deals with the issue of spanking. One country in the world, at least, has dealt with this issue and had lengthy public campaigns culminating in a change of their laws to end spanking.
Surprise, surprise. Swedish society has not collapsed. I think similar laws exist in Finland.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=005601&p=... thread: spanking law upheld[/url]
[url=http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/human_ecology/staff/fs_sciences/135.ht... Joan Durrant specializes in this issue. Some VERY good links here.[/url]
Mon, 2008-06-23 08:14
#3
Spanking is not illegal in Canada.
Assault is illegal.
Assault is any unwanted touching, including a threat to touch.
The Criminal Code exempts from prosecution those parents who touch a child using reasonable force for a corrective purpose.
Those who wish to remove that last protective clause, simply hand over to police the discretion to prosecute.
In theory, should the protective clause be removed, grounding a child in his or her bedroom would be forcible confinement, and grabbing his/her hand to make the child leave the playground would be assault.
Of course, everyone knows that the police won't prosecute those cases. Unless they don't like you, or have little sympathy for your ethnic group or sexual orientation.
Leaving lots of discretion in the hands of police, and none in the hands of parents, doesn't recommend itself to me.
Mon, 2008-06-23 08:41
#4
N.Beltov
Here is a list of states in the world that have decided to protect children, by law, from all corporal punishment. The Swedish tide is a flood.
[url=http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/prohib_states.html]S... with full abolition of corporal punishment of children.[/url]
quote:
Sweden was the first country in the world to prohibit all corporal punishment of children. In 1979 a provision was added to the Parenthood and Guardianship Code which now reads: "Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment."The proposal, together with a draft Bill, came from a multi-disciplinary Children's Rights Commission, chaired by an eminent judge, which emphasised: "The primary purpose of the provision is to make it clear that beating children is not permitted. Secondly, the Commission wishes to create a basis for general information and education for parents as to the importance of giving children good care and as to one of the prime requirements of their care. The proposed provision should, in the long term, contribute towards reducing the number of cases of acts of physical violence on children". It proposed a "recurrent general parent education programme". When the Bill went before Parliament it was passed by 259 votes to 6.
The Ministry of Justice led a very large-scale education campaign. A pamphlet distributed to every household with children emphasised that "the law now forbids all forms of physical punishment of children, including smacking etc, although it goes without saying that you can still snatch a child away from a hot stove or open window if there is a risk of its injuring itself".
The legal provision forms part of Sweden's family (civil) law. But its purpose is to emphasise beyond doubt that the criminal code on assault covers physical punishment, although trivial offences remain unpunished just as trivial assaults between adults are not prosecutable.
A detailed research review of the effects of Sweden's ban has been carried out by Professor Joan E Durrant, Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Family Studies at the University of Manitoba. See A Generation Without Smacking - The impact of Sweden's ban on physical punishment (1.9 MB PDF).
In all, 23 states have taken these measures. Sadly, Canada has not.
Spain (2007)
Chile (2007)
Venzuela (2007)
Uruguay (2007)
Portugal (2007)
New Zealand (2007)
Netherlands (2007)
Greece (2006)
Hungary (2005)
Romania (2004)
Ukraine (2004)
Iceland (2003)
Germany (2000)
Israel (2000)
Bulgaria (2000)
Croatia (1999)
Latvia (1998)
Denmark (1997)
Cyprus (1994)
Austria (1989)
Norway (1987)
Finland (1983)
Sweden (1979)
[url=http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/index.html]Global Initiative to end Corporal Punishment of Children[/url]
Mon, 2008-06-23 08:52
#5
It is inspiring to see countries with a heavy historical burden of fascism, such as Spain and Chile, enact such progressive legislation.
Jeff, I understand your fears about discriminatory use of this provision, but isn't that true of any law?
In many parts of the world, men can still "discipline" their wife - even if it is usually technically illegal now, macho police and courts do not clamp down on such treatment. Sure, children don't have an adult's capacity to reason, but neither do mentally disabled people, and it is not legal to assault them (all people can be restrained from harming others).
I think allowing corporal punishment of children is a holdover from the days when they were seen as chattel.
There can certainly be provisions against frivolous arrests and prosecutions.
Mon, 2008-06-23 09:31
#6
quote:
Jeff, I understand your fears about discriminatory use of this provision, but isn't that true of any law?
Not really. The proposal criminalizes a lot of behaviour not now criminal. ANY NONCONSENSUAL TOUCHING of a minor would now be a crime.
When concerns are raised, the proponents say that we can trust the police not to lay charges when the crimes being committed are minor in nature.
I would rather have the "minor crimes" not be crimes at all. That way, the police would have no discretion to arrest anyone.
As it stands in Ontario, correction of a child is criminal if it involves striking with an implement such as a belt or a switch, or if the physical damage is more than "transient".
Those, at least, are standards which allow behaviour to be measured to some extent, and leaves it to the courts to make the final determination.
If all corrective touching is unlawful, the court has no role to play, and the discretion remains entirely with the police.
Mon, 2008-06-23 09:33
#7
Sven
Per N.Beltov’s quoted text above: "The [b][i]primary[/b][/i] purpose of the provision is to make it clear that beating children is not permitted” (my emphasis)
So, the objectives of the law are (at least) two-fold (1) prevent beating of children (i.e., the “primary” purpose) and (2) some unstated (secondary) purpose(s).
The language from the code (again, from N.Beltov’s quoted text above) gives a clue (really, the only clue) as to what that secondary purpose might be: "Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment [b][i]or any other humiliating treatment"[/b][/i]
Beating a kid is one thing (it’s [i]relatively[/i] objective—either a kid is being beaten or the kid is not—[b][i]if[/b][/i] you define a “beating” as the use of “any” use of force) but whether or not something is “humiliating treatment” is highly subjective.
Is sending a kid to her room for misbehaving “humiliating treatment”? Yeah, it’s humiliating.
Is telling a kid that he has to apologize to a neighbor kid for doing something bad “humiliating”? Yeah, that can definitely be humiliating.
Parents may tell a kid that if he does start doing X (chores, studying, etc.) or stop doing Y (routinely not coming home by a certain time, playing video games all of the time, etc.) that the kid will no longer be able to play a certain sport. The kid doesn’t start doing X (or stop doing Y) and the kid can no longer play the sport with her friends and the kid is “humiliated”. Is that actionable?
Basically, parental expression of disapproval by providing adverse consequences is almost by definition “humiliating” to the kid.
So, is the state going to come in and determine what is and what is not criminally “humiliating”? If so, a country might as well take kids away from parents from the moment of birth and give them to the Ministry of Child-Rearing.
As to "beatings", I agree with what Jeff House has written.
[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Mon, 2008-06-23 09:46
#8
N.Beltov
Don't let me get in the way of your straw man. Knock yourself out.
Mon, 2008-06-23 09:49
#9
That's an interesting comment. I have been practicing criminal law for thirty years, and deal with the Toronto police on a daily basis.
I don't think it's a strawman, I think it is the reality.
What is the basis for your view to the contrary?
Mon, 2008-06-23 09:56
#10
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Don't let me get in the way of your straw man. Knock yourself out.[/b]
You must misunderstand the meaning of a “straw man argument”.
If I was truly making a “straw man argument”, I would be saying, in effect, that the ban on “humiliating treatment” is bad for reasons X, Y, and Z and that, therefore, the ban on spanking is also a bad idea. [b][i]That[/b][/i] would have been a “straw man argument”.
But, in fact, they (spanking and “humiliating treatment”) are separate issues and I was addressing only the “humiliating treatment” issue. Only in passing did I say that I agreed with Jeff House’s comments on spanking.
You’ll need to brush up on your understanding of logical fallacies...
Mon, 2008-06-23 09:58
#11
I don't think it's a strawperson either - I remember the problems we had at one of the earliest shelters for battered spouses here - this is over 30 years ago - getting the police to take the matter seriously. And it would be silly to deny the different treatment people get from the cops based on their social class and racial or ethnic group.
But I don't see how that can be used to justify hurting smaller, weaker people because they are YOUR minor children. You don't have the right to beat someone else's minor children if they trample your flowers or hurt your cat.
Mon, 2008-06-23 10:03
#12
quote:
But I don't see how that can be used to justify hurting smaller, weaker people because they are YOUR minor children. You don't have the right to beat someone else's minor children if they trample your flowers or hurt your cat.
Parents do indeed have legal authority over their own children. IF my smaller, weaker son is killing your cat, I may grab him by the hand, shake him, or even swat him on the bum.
The best way to keep you from having the authority to punish my child, is if I have the authority. That way, when you find him hurting your cat, you simply transfer him to me for correction, and not to the police.
Mon, 2008-06-23 10:03
#13
N.Beltov
My remark was more addressed to Sven's remark about a prospective excessive role for the police.
Joan Durrant has responded to a critique of the changes in Sweden from Robert Larzelere of "The Christian Institute and Families First" organization. This is sort of organizations that is, still, trying to reverse the Swedish and other changes. Durrant eviscerates Larzelere in her "Law Reform and Corporal Punishment in Sweden" which can be found at one of the links I've provided.
The point is this: vehement opponents of laws prohibiting corporal punishment of children, it seems, should have had enough time (since 1979 in Sweden, e.g.) to demonstrate the sort of police misuse of their powers that you and Sven are worrying about.
But I don't see that argument being made by Larzelere et al. [b]Edited to add: or, at least, good arguments that Durrant isn't able to make short work of. [/b]
Perhaps the legal regimen here has more built-in dangers?
[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Mon, 2008-06-23 10:18
#14
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Don't let me get in the way of your straw man. Knock yourself out.[/b]
It's not a strawman. That would be the consequence.
Mon, 2008-06-23 10:43
#15
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]Parents do indeed have legal authority over their own children. IF my smaller, weaker son is killing your cat, I may grab him by the hand, shake him, or even swat him on the bum.
The best way to keep you from having the authority to punish my child, is if I have the authority. That way, when you find him hurting your cat, you simply transfer him to me for correction, and not to the police.[/b]
Or instead of shaking your babies and swatting your children maybe parents should use their big people's voice.
Study after study shows that hitting children is the least effective means of changing behaviour and in way too many cases it leads to adults who are violent and have serious anger management problems. Not surprising when their parents use violence to solve problems.
The real question is where does the harm of spanking children outweigh any good. We don't let parents send their children out to work at 8 because we recognize that it is not healthy for the children even if the family might in the short term really need the income. If they do the sate can intervene.
What I find interesting is listening to the various talking heads on this issue. By and large the same media who demand that young offenders be treated as adults when charged with crimes are also saying that parents need the right to hit their children even though it has been proven that a significant percentage of children who are parented by hitting will in fact become violent themselves.
Hit the kids now and if they develop problems from bad parenting then lock them up and throw away the key. Society only needs laws to incarcerate the mistakes not laws to protect children from violence.
Mon, 2008-06-23 11:23
#16
Shaking small children is really dangerous, and has led to kids becoming brain damaged. On the other hand, a swat on the bum is harmless and sometimes the only way to get the message through. I believe that verbally correcting of children can be overdone too and become abusive. I think that appropriate levels of both physical and verbal punishment should be available to parents at their discretion, since both can cross the line IMHO.
Mon, 2008-06-23 11:46
#17
[url=http://www.toronto.ca/health/children/discipline.htm#1]Spanking Hurts[/url]
quote:
Spanking: It hurts more than you think
“Spanking hurts more than you think” is an early child development public education campaign that includes TV ads to remind parents that spanking is hitting and never a positive way to discipline your child.
Parenting is very rewarding, but nobody ever said it was easy. There are ups and downs, and both you and your child will make mistakes along the way. That’s okay. You’re not alone.
One of the major challenges you might face is discipline. When your child’s behaviour pushes you to the edge, how do you handle it? Do you see spanking as a solution?
You may feel really frustrated at the time, but spanking is not discipline. It is physical punishment and it can hurt your child.
You can use discipline to teach your child to behave. It can be hard but it’s also rewarding. If you’re not sure how to respond to your child’s behaviour, take a moment to read a little further. After all, every parent can use a little help sometimes.
[url=http://www.todaysparent.com/lifeasparent/article.jsp?content=20080219_16...'s Experience[/url]
quote:
According to the people I met in Sweden, this generation of parents just doesn’t think about spanking. It’s been 50 years since Sweden’s version of Section 43 was removed from the Penal Code, and almost 30 since the Swedish parliament passed an amendment, in 1979, to its Parent and Guardianship Code (akin to our provincial child protection legislation), expressly forbidding any form of corporal punishment. The intervening years witnessed a profound attitudinal shift away from spanking.There was a time when Swedish parents spanked their children. A survey of Swedes born in the 1950s found that all had been subjected to corporal punishment at least once. A little more than a generation later, the picture was markedly different: Data from a longitudinal study of Swedes born in the 1980s found that 86 percent said they had never been physically punished by their parents. In a survey conducted in the mid-1990s, only 11 percent of Swedes expressed support for even mild forms of corporal punishment.
In contrast, a recent Canadian survey found that 42 percent of respondents not only condoned spanking, but said it was beneficial for a child’s development.
Cecilia Moen, a mother of one who grew up in both Sweden and Canada, says the issue for Swedish parents is not being worried about what will happen if they get caught smacking their child. It’s that they genuinely don’t want to do it. “Most people here [in Sweden] think it’s bad to physically punish a child, that it would be a sign of failure as a parent,” she says.
Moen, who lives near Gothenburg, Sweden’s second-largest city, says child welfare workers focus on supporting parents, not on catching them breaking the law. “The first step is often to try to help the parents so that they can become better parents.
[url=http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/nfnts-spanking... Justice Canada Says Doesn't Work[/url]
quote:
Spanking is not an effective form of discipline, even though some people may think it is.
Spanking can lead to anger and resentment and
can cause children to lose trust in their parents.
Spanking teaches that hitting others is okay. In the long run, spanking makes children's behaviour
worse, not better.
Why should parents be allowed to subject their children to a potentially harmful practice that is clearly not effective?
Maybe because I don't consider my children to be chattel I just don't understand the idea that parents should have the right to hit their children.
Mon, 2008-06-23 12:13
#18
Pogo
I think making a binary choice about spanking without considering the harm done by other parenting methods (solitary confinement, public chastising, denial of valued rights/priveleges) is silly and useless.
Mon, 2008-06-23 12:35
#19
N.Beltov
Sidebar: a Winnipeg man, "who heard "squeezing" babies would stop their crying," will be sentenced today after he pleaded guilty to assaulting his six-month-old triplet sons.
quote:
CBC: When the boys were taken to hospital last fall, doctors found they had a total of 19 broken or cracked bones. They have recovered from their injuries, but remain in the care of child-welfare authorities.
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/06/23/wpg-soldier.html]Winn... man awaits sentence.[/url]
____________________________________
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/06/20/f-weeklycheckup-barwick.html]CBC Discussion of similar issue to this thread.[/url]
[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Mon, 2008-06-23 12:39
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo:
[b]I think making a binary choice about spanking without considering the harm done by other parenting methods (solitary confinement, public chastising, denial of valued rights/priveleges) is silly and useless.[/b]
Lets see we know arsenic pollutes rivers but we shouldn't ban it because other things pollute rivers also. Is that not the same logic you are using?
If something is ineffective and potentially harmful why should it be allowed merely because other parenting techniques also are potentially flawed. The bottom line is that hitting your kids doesn't make them better children and there is a well documented case that it too often does real harm to both the children first and then society next as those children who have been beaten as "punishment" decide it is all right to injure others.
Spanking children has real negative effects both on children and society, seems like the conditions we normally take into account when we decide on public policy issues.
Mon, 2008-06-23 12:43
#21
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Study after study shows that hitting children is the least effective means of changing behaviour and in way too many cases it leads to adults who are violent and have serious anger management problems. Not surprising when their parents use violence to solve problems.[/b]
Has this been rigorously demonstrated in twin studies and adoption studies or it just an obvious genetic correlation (violent people have violent children).
Mon, 2008-06-23 12:48
#22
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Lets see we know arsenic pollutes rivers but we shouldn't ban it because other things pollute rivers also. Is that not the same logic you are using?
[/b]
We should not ban arseric if it is 100% that corporations will just use lead and mercury instead. That's not the case so your analogy is flawed.
Parents will discipline their children, and thus spanking should only be shunned if it is known to be more damaging and/or less beneficial than other methods in all cases.
Mon, 2008-06-23 13:34
#23
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]We should not ban arseric if it is 100% that corporations will just use lead and mercury instead. That's not the case so your analogy is flawed.
Parents will discipline their children, and thus spanking should only be shunned if it is known to be more damaging and/or less beneficial than other methods in all cases.[/b]
So you disagree with the research? I've posted numerous links were the research all points to the problems with spanking.
Or are you saying that although we know hitting children is often harmful and is normally more harmful than other methods as long as in some instances mental abuse can be worse we should allow parents to beat their children. Wouldn't it be just better to try and protect children.
The problem is that while arsenic, lead and mercury are comparatively toxic in that they all have poor outcomes the same is not true for parenting techniques. Your argument is similar to the gun debate. Why ban guns when people can murder with knives? Why ban beating children when parents can do harm in non-physical ways?
I hope your children recover from their punishment!
Mon, 2008-06-23 14:21
#24
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]So you disagree with the research? I've posted numerous links were the research all points to the problems with spanking.Or are you saying that although we know hitting children is often harmful and is normally more harmful than other methods as long as in some instances mental abuse can be worse we should allow parents to beat their children. Wouldn't it be just better to try and protect children.
The problem is that while arsenic, lead and mercury are comparatively toxic in that they all have poor outcomes the same is not true for parenting techniques. Your argument is similar to the gun debate. Why ban guns when people can murder with knives? Why ban beating children when parents can do harm in non-physical ways?
I hope your children recover from their punishment![/b]
Yes I'm very doubtful of their conclusions. You didn't even post any credible sources like research papers directly from neuroscientists, you posted links to colourful web pages from groups and even from the MSM outlet "Today's Parent".
As no credible evidence has been posted of your claim, then it is equivalent to all other claims, with the caveat that it doesn't do well on a purely reason-based analysis.
There's a common belief among western intellectuals that nothing is worse than physical pain. It's a load of crap to say that physical means are infinitely worse than verbal and psychological means. I'm reminded of discussions of torture where some military official implied psychological torture is better than physical torture.
Mon, 2008-06-23 14:34
#25
Catchfire
Why is the burden of proof on someone who says you [i]shouldn't[/i] beat your kids? Why is the default position corporal punishment?
Mon, 2008-06-23 14:37
#26
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]The real question is where does the harm of spanking children outweigh any good.[/b]
Is that a rhetorical question or are you asking if there is a point, on a continuum, where an increasing qualitative degree of corporal punishment starts to create a harm that outweighs any benefits accruing from corporal punishment? If it’s the latter, I think that’s a valid question.
But, some people seem to be unable to discern a qualitative difference between a spanking (especially when it occurs only once or very rarely) and a “beating”. A beating, particularly if repeated (and most particularly if it is a common occurrence), may condition a child to view violence as normal behavior when the child becomes an adult.
My questions would be:
1. Does a spanking (particularly when it is only a rare event) have the same adverse effect, if any, as a beating (especially when a beating repeated)? I would think the answer is “no”.
2. Do any negative effects of spanking, even when used only rarely, always outweigh any benefits that may result from a spanking? Having been a child who received, deservedly, a couple of swats on the behind as a little kid, I’d be highly skeptical of an affirmative answer.
Mon, 2008-06-23 14:41
#27
Sven
As an aside, one additional question I’d ask of those who favor a prohibition on spanking (even if once) is: [b]Why stop with spanking?[/b]
I think that there are many parenting habits and practices that are (especially cumulatively) far more detrimental to a child’s development than an occasional spanking when they are little. Yet, few, if any, advocates of banning spanking would even think about state interference with those parental actions (or omissions).
For example, parents who:
■ Let their children watch excessive amounts of television (particularly television with lots of violence and other adult themes)
■ Let their kids eat whatever junk food the kids want to eat (obesity is rampant in North America)
■ Let young kids stay out as late as they want
■ Don’t engage in their children’s school work (don’t make sure that homework is being done, don’t talk to teachers, don’t question grades, etc.)
■ Don’t read to their children
■ Don’t correct antisocial behavior
■ Don’t inculcate basic norms of social interaction
I don’t see any advocates of banning spanking saying, [b]“Parents [i]must also[/i] be required by the state to do X, Y, and Z and, in addition to not spanking, the state [i]must also prohibit[/i] parents from doing A, B, or C”[/b], even though not doing X, Y, and Z and doing A, B, and C will likely have a detrimental effect (especially cumulatively) on the development of children and their future ability to function as adults.
Mon, 2008-06-23 14:50
#28
Catchfire
Sorry, I was too dazzled by your usage of bold, italics and bulleted lists to follow your logic there.
Mon, 2008-06-23 14:56
#29
N.Beltov
Just to re-iterate, there are plenty of articles and research results on the [url=http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/human_ecology/staff/fs_sciences/135.ht... Durrant bio at Univ of Manitoba Human Ecology link.[/url]
And the author actually provides her e mail address, if you want to ask her a specific question. Who knows? She might even reply.
Mon, 2008-06-23 14:56
#30
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Sorry, I was too dazzled by your usage of bold, italics and bulleted lists to follow your logic there.[/b]
In simple terms: Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not spanking makes sense, in my latter post I was simply questioning why there is such an eagerness to have the state snuff out even a one-time spanking by parents but not a similar clamor to have the state prohibit numerous other parental practices (and to require certain other parental practices) in order to make sure that all children have the very best possible parental upbrining that our wise academic institutions and governmental organs can conceive of.
Mon, 2008-06-23 15:22
#31
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]As an aside, one additional question I’d ask of those who favor a prohibition on spanking (even if once) is: [b]Why stop with spanking?[/b]I think that there are many parenting habits and practices that are (especially cumulatively) far more detrimental to a child’s development than an occasional spanking when they are little. Yet, few, if any, advocates of banning spanking would even think about state interference with those parental actions (or omissions).
For example, parents who:
■ Let their children watch excessive amounts of television (particularly television with lots of violence and other adult themes)
■ Let their kids eat whatever junk food the kids want to eat (obesity is rampant in North America)
■ Let young kids stay out as late as they want
■ Don’t engage in their children’s school work (don’t make sure that homework is being done, don’t talk to teachers, don’t question grades, etc.)
■ Don’t read to their children
■ Don’t correct antisocial behavior
■ Don’t inculcate basic norms of social interaction
I don’t see any advocates of banning spanking saying, [b]“Parents [i]must also[/i] be required by the state to do X, Y, and Z and, in addition to not spanking, the state [i]must also prohibit[/i] parents from doing A, B, or C”[/b], even though not doing X, Y, and Z and doing A, B, and C will likely have a detrimental effect (especially cumulatively) on the development of children and their future ability to function as adults.[/b]
Sven,
It's because physical pain is the worst possible thing imaginable, any verbally, psychologically or emotionally questionable situation is prefferable to one in which physical pain takes place.
For example, there are claims of developmental side effects to physical spankings, but no such claims for shouting, humiliation, et cetera.
[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Mon, 2008-06-23 15:24
#32
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Why is the burden of proof on someone who says you [i]shouldn't[/i] beat your kids? Why is the default position corporal punishment?[/b]
Spanking is not beating.
Clearly beating is wrong.
Mon, 2008-06-23 15:26
#33
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Just to re-iterate, there are plenty of articles and research results on the [url=http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/human_ecology/staff/fs_sciences/135.ht... Durrant bio at Univ of Manitoba Human Ecology link.[/url]And the author actually provides her e mail address, if you want to ask her a specific question. Who knows? She might even reply.[/b]
Most of the publications have no links to them.
But, here's a statement in one of the publications that was linked to on her site: "Substantial proportions of victims of punitive violence exhibit internalizing or externalizing problems. Nineteen percent of victims exhibited depression or anxiety, 20% displayed violence towards others and 19% were involved in negative peer relationships. Similar differences were noted to similar degrees among children who had experienced emotional punishment."
So, 19% of children who are "victims of punitive violence" suffer from depression or anxiety. Now, I'm no statistician but there are three [b][i]obvious[/b][/i] (but unanswered) questions this raises:
(1) What is the rate of depression for all children? In other words, is her 19% statistic an unusually high rate of depression? According to this [url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N3/dep1.3n.html]MIT publication[/url], 17% of Americans "will suffer from a major depressive episode at least once in their lifetime". I have no idea what the actual rate of depression is but it it's even roughly close to what she is saying in that report, then the quoting of that percentage is pretty much meaningless.
(2) What is the evidence that the physical punishment [b][i]caused[/b][/i] the depression? There are many, many factors (not the least of which is genetics) that lead to depression. How has the good professor managed to isolate the variable of physical punishment as being the relevant variable? She just throws out the number: 19% of those who are "victims of punitive violence" suffer from depression--as though that statistic is meaninful in itself. It's not.
(3) There is no differentiation between children who gets a periodic swat on the behind and children who are violently beaten and emotionally abused on an ongoing basis. The children, it would appear, are all mixed up on one big pot. You cannot legitimately point to this kind of statistic and say, "See? Spanking (even if only employed rarely) is demonstrably bad."
[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Mon, 2008-06-23 15:33
#34
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]It's because physical pain is the worst possible thing imaginable [/b]
Really? That's a rather definitive statement.
I’ve had a lot of very painful physical hurts (broken bones, bad back, etc.) in my life but depression is far more “painful”, though not physical, than any of them...by far.
ETA: This is not to mention other emotional hurts that I've experienced over the years. And, in my opinion, a severe emotional hurt is much more painful than any physical pain I've suffered from. Not even comparable.
[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Mon, 2008-06-23 15:43
#35
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Really? That's a rather definitive statement.
I’ve had a lot of very painful physical hurts (broken bones, bad back, etc.) in my life but depression is far more “painful”, though not physical, than any of them...by far.
ETA: This is not to mention other emotional hurts that I've experienced over the years. And, in my opinion, a severe emotional hurt is much more painful than any physical pain I've suffered from. Not even comparable.
[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ][/b]
I was being sarcastic, and actually I agree with you 100%.
Mon, 2008-06-23 16:09
#36
But how do we know when "spanking" has crossed the line into "beating"? This kind of thing takes place out of public view in the privacy of a home. Is a seven year old child going to take his parent to court because he/she has determined the severity of said spanking has crossed the line?
What exactly constitutes an "acceptable" spanking?
Of course I'm not talking about a parent who hauls off and punches his child because they spilt some milk at the dinner table. We would all say that that is abuse.
But what about a parent who has lost patience and in an outburst of anger viscously spanks a child on his/her ass. No marks are left, not a single bruise, we aren't talking about a physical abuse here, the ass is quite resilient, but the emotional damage to a child from such a parental spanking outburst can be long lasting and lead to life long anger management issues.
Why anger management issues? Because if you as an adult can recall what it was like to be a small child you will understand how frustrating it can be to be attacked in such a manner with ABSOLUTELY no way to prevent it. You are helpless yes? With no one who at that moment is on your side, so to speak. Then to be left alone perhaps in your room in pain and humiliation.
I do not believe that striking a child should in any way be a legal act. Restraining a child as in holding them or taking them by the arm or hand to remove them from a situation amy be nesessary, I don't see that causing a problem, but corporal punishment of children by parents should be outlawed.
Because as I already said, how do you define "acceptable" spanking. Even more how do you enforce such a thing. We either make corporal punishment legal knowing there will be many cases of excessiveness, or we ban it altogether.
I simply do not believe hitting children, even "just a few swats" does any good.
Mon, 2008-06-23 16:13
#37
And yes I also think we should make people especially kids where head protection when engaged in certain sports. Nanny state I guess but there it is I think as a society we have the responsibility to protect children.
I am sure you are the reasonable kind of parents that would only give a little tap on the bum and not a cuff on the side of the head or a little shake to get their attention when you can't figure out what is bothering a child not a series of shakes in anger. Your reasonable behaviour in an angry man unfortunately escalates into a sound whipping or shaken baby syndrome.
In my opinion the condoning of hitting children as a form of discipline when parents don't t know the difference between hitting and beating puts a lot of children who live with angry people in danger. Telling a violent man or woman that they can "spank" their children is the problem. Battered children are real and societal attitudes play a role in those numbers.
Don't hit!!! That is what most of us taught our children growing up. I never found it necessary to add except when I feel like I should hit you.
A question for all the non-state interventionists, do you also think that young offenders accused of violent crimes should be tried in adult court?
Mon, 2008-06-23 16:29
#38
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]A question for all the non-state interventionists, do you also think that young offenders accused of violent crimes should be tried in adult court?[/b]
I guess it depends on the cost of doughnuts in China.
Mon, 2008-06-23 16:41
#39
Given the current market price of donuts in China I will take it that is a yes.
Mon, 2008-06-23 20:03
#40
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Maritimesea:
[b]But how do we know when "spanking" has crossed the line into "beating"?[/b]
Leads into...
quote:
Originally posted by Maritimesea:
[b]Restraining a child as in holding them or taking them by the arm...[/b]
But how do we know when "taking" them by the arm isn't unlawfully "pulling" them by the arm?
And, how do we know when "holding" them isn't "squeezing" them?
"Taking" a child by the arm or "holding" in a restraining manner should, therefore, be a crime, too.
[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Mon, 2008-06-23 20:33
#41
Timebandit
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]We should not ban arseric if it is 100% that corporations will just use lead and mercury instead. That's not the case so your analogy is flawed.
Parents will discipline their children, and thus spanking should only be shunned if it is known to be more damaging and/or less beneficial than other methods in all cases.[/b]
But it HAS been shown to be largely ineffective in any but an extremely short-term situation, and even then not especially effective.
Hitting other people doesn't work. Not on kids and not on adults. It assuages some feelings of frustration in the parent but it only teaches kids that if you're provoked or frustrated enough, it's okay to haul off and whack somebody.
I've noticed someone talking about "deserved" swats... Who deserves to be hit? You? Me? That guy over there who's doing stuff he shouldn't and is pissing you off? Yeah, maybe he does "deserve" to be hit -- so go for it! But first, just who the fuck are you to decide.
Maybe we should bring caning back into the justice system. If spanking's good for kids, why not criminals?
Possibly because it's barbaric and doesn't work... Just to float a guess.
quote:
Why is the burden of proof on someone who says you shouldn't beat your kids? Why is the default position corporal punishment?
Because parents who are tired and frustrated lack both imagination and empathy. I know it, I've been there. I still didn't think it gave me the right to hit my kids, but I've been tempted.
Doesn't make it right, good, effective or sensible. So I don't. I don't think other people should either.
Tue, 2008-06-24 07:17
#42
quote:
I don't think it's a strawperson either...
No lagatta; not you too!
Why not just say "persons of straw" just to make sure we don't offend anyone in the paille-faced community.
Tue, 2008-06-24 07:26
#43
Catchfire
That's awful.
Tue, 2008-06-24 07:40
#44
I don't believe in spanking or hitting children. I don't spank or hit my own child.
BUT...I think we also have a society full of people who aren't "there yet" when it comes to not spanking children, and I don't think it's a great idea to immediately criminalize all parents who spank or hit their child.
Do you trust the CAS and the police to not target low income families, and families of colour, and immigrant families with such a law? I sure as hell don't. And I don't want to see good parents (and parents who occasionally spank ARE just as good parents as the rest of us - we all fuck up our kids in some way, none of us being perfect) having their kids taken away from them.
A close friend of mine had the CAS intervene because her one of her kids (who are black) were targeted at school for questioning by the principal about drugs (which they had nothing to do with, but they're black, you know, so obviously they must know something, right? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] ). Anyhow, her kid told the principal, "I don't know anything about it - my mom would kill me if I did drugs." He was clearly using hyperbole.
But those assholes called the CAS based on that statement. (I somehow doubt they'd have called the CAS on a white kid from a well-off family for that.) And the CAS actually investigated, based on some kid saying, "My mom would kill me if I did that." As it turns out, they chose the wrong black family to pick on, because his mother raised holy hell over it.
And they experienced racist shit like this ALL THE TIME, from school officials, from police. She would be the first one to get her kid taken away from her if she ever gave her kid a swat on the butt and some authority found out about it. But I know lots of upper middle class white kids whose parents smacked them and spanked them and some whose parents even took a belt to them. You can bet they will NEVER be targeted by such a law. Ever. In a million years.
The reason I don't want to see a simple spank become illegal isn't because I believe in spanking kids. I definitely don't. But I think the practice is so widespread (even a lot of parents who don't believe in it lose it once in a while and do it either out of anger or because they feel like they've tried everything else) that making it illegal will criminalize everyone instead of teaching them better child-rearing techniques.
[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2008-06-24 08:08
#45
Michelle I agree with pretty much all you say but I don't think it is the answer. When talking to my black brother he tells me that he believes he gets pulled over by highway police (in TO)when he speeds far more often than someone like me, a white guy. So by your logic above we should not have speeding laws because we are sure they will be disproportionally used against POC. In our racist society any law of general application from drug laws to speeding tickets to child custody cases is going to be used against poor POC. Does that mean we need not to pass laws or that we need to fight racism in our institutions. I think the later.
I think first of all maybe the sentencing provisions need to be on the right page. A spank on the bum is different than a whipping with a rod the size of my thumb. Both used to be legal and now it is arguable that the whipping is not "reasonable" but that would be the courts role to decide. The studies from Sweden show that an attitudinal change occurred and children now don't get hit as often in Sweden.
In Canada we chose to enforce seat belt laws, another hot topic for "individual" rights people. In many US states they didn't because it was a individual issue. We have compliance in Canada and most people don't even think about it when they get in a car they buckle up. In the US apparently that is not the case in many states that don't have enforcement or maybe even laws.
We need mechanisms that tell parents it is not right to hit their children. The law can make the sentence a mandatory parenting course it doesn't have to be any more draconian than that.
Tue, 2008-06-24 08:09
#46
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[QB]I’ve had a lot of very painful physical hurts (broken bones, bad back, etc.) in my life but depression is far more “painful”, though not physical, than any of them...by far.
ETA: This is not to mention other emotional hurts that I've experienced over the years. And, in my opinion, a severe emotional hurt is much more painful than any physical pain I've suffered from. Not even comparable.
I completely agree with you here. From experience
Tue, 2008-06-24 08:20
#47
Sven
Great post, Michelle.
The other thing I would add is: If spanking were criminalized, do any of the anti-spanking folks actually believe that those parents who really abuse their kids now (i.e., the ones who actually [b][i]beat[/b][/i] their children—as opposed to a faux “beating” of a rare swat in the pants) would change their behavior?
Tue, 2008-06-24 08:23
#48
Pogo
quote:
Originally posted by Maritimesea:
[b] but the emotional damage to a child from such a parental spanking outburst can be long lasting and lead to life long anger management issues.
[/b]
Personally, my view is that if you are at the point where you are considering spanking you already lost the battle. However there are many other punishments that I consider as bad or worse than spanking (as defined above by others) . The answer is not to ban one of many actions with potentially harmful consequences, but rather to ensure that parents have the supports and training to be good parents.
Tue, 2008-06-24 08:28
#49
I was spanked on occasion when I deserved it.
No long-term emotional damage.
Tue, 2008-06-24 08:34
#50
Pogo
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[b]No long-term emotional damage.[/b]
Oh ya, who did you vote for last election?
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2008-06-24 08:42
#51
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]So by your [Michelle’s] logic above we should not have speeding laws because we are sure they will be disproportionally used against POC. [/b]
That’s also a good point.
As an aside, I propose something [b][i]quite novel and revolutionary[/b][/i]: How about if we focus on the real problem (actual beatings—and emotional abuse—of children) and, at the very least, put periodic swats on the seat on the backburner?