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/...ral-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/...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...unishment.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.

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/...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.

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]

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?