Corporal Punishment

[smartbei]

Corporal punishment is defined as the practice of "deliberate infliction of pain intended as correction or punishment." It has been used for centuries against criminals, prisoners, and children. In the USA, corporal punishment against criminals is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus not allowed under the eighth ammendment. Still, the law finds no problems with the corporal punishment of children, and leaves up to their parents or schools the decision of if and when to hurt them.

The fourteenth ammendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Clearly, this means that in the eyes of the law, all citizens will be equal, especially in the area of "life, liberty, or property."

Not only this, but many studies have proven that corporal punishment is harmful to the minors it is used upon, with proof that children who are harmed (in essence, abused) by their parents as punishment have lower IQ scores several years down the line, exhibit greater anti-social behavior, and have greater risk to become depressed and alcoholic.

In spite of this evidence, as well as the ammendments of the U.S. Constitution, Parents continue to regularly hit their children, encouraged many times by churches and conservative organizations. Last time I checked, purposely harming someone is the same thing as abusing that person. Also, the last time I checked, it is ilegal to encourage abuse, or for that matter, any crime.

The question is then, why is corporal punishment still legal in the USA? Many countries in Europe already have laws in place that restrict, or at the least limit corporal punishment.

Well, lets see what response this will illicit.

[afterdeath]

ah, the good old days back when there wasn't anything wrong with your child that a belt or some soap couldn't fix... those days are long gone, replaced by words and time out. I have a younger brother and sister, and have noticed a stark contrast in their behavior and what mine was at their age, they're more spoiled, louder, angrier, disrespectful, and all around worse. It's because my dad used to spank me, now only if they're really bad, do they get put in time-out. The point is, minimal corporal punishment is sometimes needed to keep kids in line, my rump may not be red anymore, but I'll sure as hell never lie to my parents again, sometimes, you need to draw the line, though, if the line is being crossed too often, maybe you and your kid need to see a councelor (SP?).

[BAWLS]

At 8/12/05 11:41 AM, afterdeath wrote: I'll sure as hell never lie to my parents again

Ah, there's the key. You wouldn't lie to your parents. See, corporal punishment forces the kid to "respect" the parent out of fear, but it doesn't neccessarily change their behavior.

[PhysicsMafia]

At 8/12/05 11:58 AM, -BAWLS- wrote:

At 8/12/05 11:41 AM, afterdeath wrote: I'll sure as hell never lie to my parents again

Ah, there's the key. You wouldn't lie to your parents. See, corporal punishment forces the kid to "respect" the parent out of fear, but it doesn't neccessarily change their behavior.

compliance through fear is better than noncompliance.

if people were more afraid of the law there would be less crime, if people were more afraid of gettin smacked by their parents or teachers there would be less bastard children, if they wont obey through respect then fear is the next alternative

[Proteas]

At 8/12/05 12:03 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: compliance through fear is better than noncompliance.

if people were more afraid of the law there would be less crime,

My sentiments exactly. Law's don't mean SHIT if there isn't some form of effective punishment to back it up with. Personally, I'm more afraid of what they do in Indonesia to convicts than what they do to people here. To me, 20 years in prison being someone's bitch isn't as scary as getting stripped naked in public and beaten within an inch of your life with a bamboo cane pole.

if people were more afraid of gettin smacked by their parents or teachers there would be less bastard children, if they wont obey through respect then fear is the next alternative

I think the distinction in this thread needs to be made between instilling discipline in children and physical abuse though... a couple of good whacks on the rear is one thing, using your kid for a punching bag is another.

[BAWLS]

At 8/12/05 12:03 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: compliance through fear is better than noncompliance.

And genuine respect is better than compliance through fear. There are better ways to instill your dominance over your kids than hitting them.

[PhysicsMafia]

At 8/12/05 12:24 PM, -BAWLS- wrote:

And genuine respect is better than compliance through fear. There are better ways to instill your dominance over your kids than hitting them.

ofcourse it is, but when one doesnt work the other should be applied. look at the problems we have is society today, the vast majority of that would be cut out if children were instilled with dicipline and respect from an early age.

and about the child abuse, punch bag thing...yea i agree. there has to be child protection laws but a smack or 2 to teach kids right from wrong is ok

[Der-Ubermensch]

I agree to some point that discipline used on a child need not be physical, necessarily. At times even loss, such as depriving them of some priviledge or material possession, can be sufficient. All this depends fully upon how far that child in particular will take it. Anything more than a good belting ( of course one leaving no permanent damage) I would considered abuse.

[BAWLS]

At 8/12/05 12:31 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: ofcourse it is, but when one doesnt work the other should be applied.

If nothing else solves the problem, then whatever. But more often then not parents are too lazy and careless to see what else would work, and skip straight to the beating.

[kLpO]

At 8/12/05 11:19 AM, smartbei wrote:

Not only this, but many studies have proven that corporal punishment is harmful to the minors it is used upon, with proof that children who are harmed (in essence, abused) by their parents as punishment have lower IQ scores several years down the line, exhibit greater anti-social behavior, and have greater risk to become depressed and alcoholic.

That actually depends on how much punishment the kids suffer.

In spite of this evidence, as well as the ammendments of the U.S. Constitution, Parents continue to regularly hit their children, encouraged many times by churches and conservative organizations. Last time I checked, purposely harming someone is the same thing as abusing that person. Also, the last time I checked, it is ilegal to encourage abuse, or for that matter, any crime.

Kid first of thats what you are a kid you dont know what it to be a father.
What corporal punishment is base is in discipline, thats the main idea. Usually when a kid doesnt understand and do something bad over and over again their parents dont have any choise that punish him, this is because when we are kinds our comprehention of the world is pretty poor and we bettter respond to simple understanding: "if i do something wrong i get punish".
Thats the true or what the main idea its all about, and with this i agree. But other thing its that some parents hiting their children for not god reason just because they are drunk. In this case the kid should tell the authorities.

To end: in the USA one off the main source of all problems is the lack of discipline in the children. Its very comun that many parents dont spend to much time with their kids, due to many reasons. And the kids dont learn a lot of values one of them is discipline and they up beening (not all the cases) conflicted persons.

[Nick-the-Taurus]

I don't agree with corporal punishment against children, but I don't think there should be a law against it. The last thing we need in this country is more fucking laws.

[DragTheWater]

At 8/12/05 11:19 AM, smartbei wrote: Corporal punishment is defined as the practice of "deliberate infliction of pain intended as correction or punishment." It has been used for centuries against criminals, prisoners, and children. In the USA, corporal punishment against criminals is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus not allowed under the eighth ammendment. Still, the law finds no problems with the corporal punishment of children, and leaves up to their parents or schools the decision of if and when to hurt them.

i think that is referring more to torture or floggings than a spanking

The fourteenth ammendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Clearly, this means that in the eyes of the law, all citizens will be equal, especially in the area of "life, liberty, or property."

you dont become a full citizen til you are at least 18-21. why you ask? because under law children cannot vote, own property, go to prison, or be executed. you are taking things a little out of context. seeing as how anything a child does the parent is held responsible for, i feel the parent has the right to use whatever disciplinary action they choose (within reason)

Not only this, but many studies have proven that corporal punishment is harmful to the minors it is used upon, with proof that children who are harmed (in essence, abused) by their parents as punishment have lower IQ scores several years down the line, exhibit greater anti-social behavior, and have greater risk to become depressed and alcoholic.

that whole statement reeks of bullshit. many many genius level people where spanked by their parents. not to mention children who dont receive spankings to to be much more obnoxious, disrespectful to adults, loud, and selfish. for example any of those children who have been on that show nanny 911 do not receive spankings.

In spite of this evidence, as well as the ammendments of the U.S. Constitution, Parents continue to regularly hit their children, encouraged many times by churches and conservative organizations. Last time I checked, purposely harming someone is the same thing as abusing that person. Also, the last time I checked, it is ilegal to encourage abuse, or for that matter, any crime.

dont pin this on the christians let me remind you that muslim countries not only practice corporal punishment on their children, but on their criminals as well. you know what crime rates in those countries are really low. i'm sorry but everything that goes wrong isnt christianity's fault

The question is then, why is corporal punishment still legal in the USA? Many countries in Europe already have laws in place that restrict, or at the least limit corporal punishment.

sorry but we have enough problems to worry about with having all these loud children that their parents couldn't control. i knew a kid who was very vey smart like in the special gifted classes smart and his mother wouldn't spank him. he was always rude and disrespectful to his mother, oh yeah btw he is in jail now for drug possession.

[Werewolf91]

At 8/12/05 11:19 AM, smartbei wrote: Not only this, but many studies have proven that corporal punishment is harmful to the minors it is used upon, with proof that children who are harmed (in essence, abused) by their parents as punishment have lower IQ scores several years down the line, exhibit greater anti-social behavior, and have greater risk to become depressed and alcoholic.

...This sounds more like child abuse than corporal punishment. The two are not the same.

[smartbei]

kLp0:
Of course I do not know what it is like to be a father. That is, however, beside the point. There are (I'm sure) senators and congressmen who make laws affecting the whole country, even when they as people don't have any experiance in the subject.

DragTheWater:
I am not sure exactly what the ammendment is intended to cover, but I know that prisoners are not spanked or physically hurt in a routine way. That is, they are hurt only when they physically resist or harm others.
----------------
"you dont become a full citizen til you are at least 18-21. why you ask? because under law children cannot vote, own property, go to prison, or be executed. you are taking things a little out of context. seeing as how anything a child does the parent is held responsible for, i feel the parent has the right to use whatever disciplinary action they choose (within reason)"
I am now fifteen, so we should all be happy to know that while I cannot vote, or even actually own property, I can be sent to prison, and I also can be executed. It has happened before (not to me...Duh). Besides, the Constitutional ammendments do not grant rights to the people, rather they are intended to limit the power of the government. Therefore, they must be taken as literally as possible. Once you start "bending the rules" abou taking the ammendments literraly, you could end up anywhere. Additionally, I would have no problem with corporal punishment if the child had a choice in letting the parent hold responsibility over him/her. However, they are not given a choice in today's society, so it does not make sense to allow the parent to trespass over the basic rights granted to all citizens.
--------------
"that whole statement reeks of bullshit. many many genius level people where spanked by their parents. not to mention children who dont receive spankings to to be much more obnoxious, disrespectful to adults, loud, and selfish. for example any of those children who have been on that show nanny 911 do not receive spankings."
My statement reeks of bullshit? Heh...I took actual studies, whereas all you are showing is anecdotal evidence at best. Besides look at what you are saying: "not to mention children who dont receive spankings to to be much more obnoxious, disrespectful to adults, loud, and selfish." For one thing, this is based entirely on your own perception, but assuming it is all true, you still stuck "disrespectful to adults" in there. Why should kids be "respectful" to adults if this is not returned? This is not to say that respect should not be given. All I am saying is that respect should go both ways, equally. Next on the list, "loud." Since when is that a crime? "selfish" and "obnoxious" are so heavily biased that I will ignore them. Never seen that show btw.
-----------------
"dont pin this on the christians let me remind you that muslim countries not only practice corporal punishment on their children, but on their criminals as well. you know what crime rates in those countries are really low. i'm sorry but everything that goes wrong isnt christianity's fault"
I was wrong to put Churches, because, as you say others encourage this practice as well. Let me change it to "Various religious organizations" and continue. Now, continuing, you say that the crime rate is really low. I really do not think enough things are similar between the average muslim country and the USA to do effective comparisons. Most of them are (or were recently) run by a dictator. Those that do have a government largly act like dictators anyway. Besides, "crime rates in those countries are really low"...perhaps, but remember that such a strict regime punishes things you would never consider as crimes. In Iran, the government has massacred people on religious whims. Yes, a free country will inevitably have more crime, but do you not think that that is a better solution? I digress from the topic however.
-------------
Lastly, to stop people from saying I am out of touch with reality here, I have talked to parents, some that spank, some that don't, and those that spank have said that usually, they spank out of anger, rather then with the intention of teaching the child something. Many times, they regret it afterward.

Ahhhh...Debating is so much fun. Take that literally. It is not supposed to mean any more then face value.

[kLpO]

At 8/13/05 12:56 AM, smartbei wrote: kLp0:
Of course I do not know what it is like to be a father. That is, however, beside the point. There are (I'm sure) senators and congressmen who make laws affecting the whole country, even when they as people don't have any experiance in the subject.

And your point is?
Anyway you are not a senator so dont compare kid. And that doesnt change the fact that you still dont know how is to be a father and if you chose to corporal punish your kids yes or no. So think before you post

[smartbei]

My point is that while I do not have the background of being a mother or a father to base my opinions on, I have researched this topic extensively and can still argue my point.
There is no reason to speak derogatorily ("kid") to me just because you disagree with my arguments.

[ReiperX]

There is a difference between beating the shit out of your child and a spanking. A spanking is perfectly fine in my opinion. Will it work with every kid no, every child is different. But depending on the child, as punishment spanking may be much more effective than just grounding, or other forms, while in other cases it might not work as good. It all depends on the kid.

[Jimsween]

Why is it that when we have a blackout, or a riot, people decide to take that oppourtunity to steal and kill.

It's because we teach you that the reason you shouldn't steal is because you will go to jail. You never need to develop morals, you have people to make sure you don't do anything wrong.

We have indisputable proof that punishment, corporal espescially, doesn't work. We had corporal punishment for thousands of years and had higher crime then ever, only when we made punishments less and less strict did we see crime go down.

Basically, the reason we have so much crime is because nobody can ever get away with a crime anymore.

[Buckdich]

When you day that corporal punishment can be harmful to children, is the study refering to spankings, ear pullings, and pinchings (which really wouldnt have a negative mental impact) or are you speaking of a pure right out beating where the kids bleeds out every hole?

Well, I think sometimes corporal punishment should be used (not to a dangerous extent though) in order to put a kid in place since kids surely will try to avoid a spanking but could really care less if they are sent to their rooms with their toys for 30 minutes..

[sp0rk3h]

anyone who hits is a faggot and should have their ballz cut off

[Proteas]

At 8/13/05 01:51 AM, smartbei wrote: I have researched this topic extensively and can still argue my point.

Cool... you did research. Now link to it to back up your statements as proof, or don't repeat them again.

[Famicommie]

Release from the American Psychological Association

According to that report, children physically punished are:

1.More likely to immediately comply with parental orders
2. Less likely to internalize the intended morals of punishment
3. More likely to exhibit aggression
4. More likely to engage in anti-social behavior
5.More likely to have lower quality parent-child relationships
and
6. More likely to have lower mental health

[Cycloptic-Man]

corporal punishment should be allowed! that way we can instead of wasting all the tax dollars we all gotta pay to keep these criminals in jail so they can wait 4 or 5 years to die we can just take them outside and shoot them in the head! cmon 1 bullet costs what less than a dollar?? Also people would think twice about committing crimes. Anyone who murders another person should be taken out the next day after sentencing and be killed. It's a waste of money to keep them alive anyway! There would be less crime and people wouldn't have to waste money. That should also be in affect for kids. (not murder lol) Parents should be allowed to spank or belt kids. (not so much as to whip them) Most kids are disrespectful and mean and rude towards there parents. All they can do is send them to there rooms making the child angry and more likley to be ruder. If he or she was to be hit they would think twice about mouthing off.

[Loch-Ness-Monster]

I don't agree with corporal punishment because I have a lot of bad memories of it. My dad's really strict and used his belt whenever I did anything wrong. It's not fair, I don't see why I should have to comply with absolutely everything through fear of being hit.

[smartbei]

"corporal punishment should be allowed! that way we can instead of wasting all the tax dollars we all gotta pay to keep these criminals in jail so they can wait 4 or 5 years to die we can just take them outside and shoot them in the head! cmon 1 bullet costs what less than a dollar?? Also people would think twice about committing crimes. Anyone who murders another person should be taken out the next day after sentencing and be killed. It's a waste of money to keep them alive anyway! There would be less crime and people wouldn't have to waste money. That should also be in affect for kids. (not murder lol) Parents should be allowed to spank or belt kids. (not so much as to whip them) Most kids are disrespectful and mean and rude towards there parents. All they can do is send them to there rooms making the child angry and more likley to be ruder. If he or she was to be hit they would think twice about mouthing off."

I am glad your not president. Kids are disrespectful to their parents...define disrespectful...Do you mean that they talk back to their parents? How do you expect kids to trully respect their parents if their parents hit them?

About sources, here are several articels I used:
http://www.religious..nce.org/spanking.htm

I am currently unable to find my works cited for this, and will post more when I find them.

The general idea is that no person should have the right to harm another person, unless the right toa fair trial is fulfilled and the punishment is decided upon bya judge. I never signed an document, nor gave my permission either verbally or written to give anyone the right to hurt me, just as I have no right to hurt them.

What I find especially enfuriating are cases where a child uses self-defense, believing that he/she is right, and gets put into jail for assault. If you were assaulted would you not defend yourself? perhaps...but children in many cases do not have this right.

[smartbei]

Well, may I ask what you hate about them? As you obviously consider yourself rationally minded, do you not realize that pure personal experiance is wheighted by your own bias and that of those around you, and that studies are entirely objective by design?

Of course, care must be taken in how you treat the study results, as well as how the study was conducted, but without facts a discussion can only go so far. It slowly degenerates into a yes-no match.

I also consider myself "rationally minded" as you say, but still realize that stuides and statistics are neccesary.

[crusifyer-of-angelz]

They need to learn that there are other ways of preventing your children of acting in certain ways other than hitting them. As you all probably know from watching the numerous programmes on T.V about kids and how the parents are taught to deal with them.
The problem is that because children are hit in order to try and control their behaviour, they grow up believing that this is the appropriate way to deal with behaviour. If more people had the sense to just stop hitting their children regardless of the laws then eventually the amount of abuse would decrease as the children would grow up knowing there are other ways to deal with it. Hitting children should be discouraged regardless as it is not acceptable for adults of teenagers to hit each other, therefore why should children be allowed to accept this punishment especially as they are the ones who will find it harder to defend themselves.

[DragTheWater]

At 8/13/05 12:56 AM, smartbei wrote: kLp0:

\: ----------------

I am now fifteen, so we should all be happy to know that while I cannot vote, or even actually own property, I can be sent to prison, and I also can be executed. It has happened before (not to me...Duh). Besides, the Constitutional ammendments do not grant rights to the people, rather they are intended to limit the power of the government. Therefore, they must be taken as literally as possible. Once you start "bending the rules" abou taking the ammendments literraly, you could end up anywhere. Additionally, I would have no problem with corporal punishment if the child had a choice in letting the parent hold responsibility over him/her. However, they are not given a choice in today's society, so it does not make sense to allow the parent to trespass over the basic rights granted to all citizens.

ok you need to specify what you mean by "children" but ok yes a teen can go to jail depending on what they do, so now i will refer to a child as anyone under 18. so as we stated before children do not govern themselves for several reasons. chief among these being they do not posses the maturity or knowledge to make wise decisions for themselves. think about it how many children whould have never gone to school if their parents didnt/couldnt make them. (and no 15 years olds are no exception.)

--------------

My statement reeks of bullshit? Heh...I took actual studies, whereas all you are showing is anecdotal evidence at best.

ok lets see some sorces for your "studies" did your homeroom teacher let you read a mazine with an article on it? let me give you a little heads up lots of studies contain various flaws in them so lets see some of these papers you have read.

Besides look at what you are saying: "not to mention children who dont receive spankings to to be much more obnoxious, disrespectful to adults, loud, and selfish." For one thing, this is based entirely on your own perception,

btw i have a little something you dont it's called real world experience.

but assuming it is all true, you still stuck "disrespectful to adults" in there. Why should kids be "respectful" to adults if this is not returned? This is not to say that respect should not be given. All I am saying is that respect should go both ways, equally.

i'm gonna let you in on a little secret, children are 2nd class citizens. you are not our equals therefore equality is laughable. i may get treated with disrespect by the government however if i show disrespect by not obeying the law i am corrected by being placed in jail. your situation is not unique.

Next on the list, "loud." Since when is that a crime? "selfish" and "obnoxious" are so heavily biased that I will ignore them. Never seen that show btw.

no its not a crime but it reflects poorly on the parent as well as causes problems for the children. also how is that biased? if a child causes a seen in the gorcery store so bad that his mother cannot shop how is that biased? i'm afraid your in over you head here.

-----------------

I was wrong to put Churches, because, as you say others encourage this practice as well. Let me change it to "Various religious organizations" and continue. Now, continuing, you say that the crime rate is really low. I really do not think enough things are similar between the average muslim country and the USA to do effective comparisons. Most of them are (or were recently) run by a dictator. Those that do have a government largly act like dictators anyway. Besides, "crime rates in those countries are really low"...perhaps, but remember that such a strict regime punishes things you would never consider as crimes. In Iran, the government has massacred people on religious whims. Yes, a free country will inevitably have more crime, but do you not think that that is a better solution? I digress from the topic however.
-------------

well a household is run more along the lines of a dictatorship than a republic, seeing as how you and your siblings do not get to vote for your parents.

Lastly, to stop people from saying I am out of touch with reality here, I have talked to parents, some that spank, some that don't, and those that spank have said that usually, they spank out of anger, rather then with the intention of teaching the child something. Many times, they regret it afterward.

talking to a few parents here and there (considering you arent making this all up) proves nothing. u would have to collect data from many more subjects over the entire united states for that arguement to actually be of merit.

Ahhhh...Debating is so much fun. Take that literally. It is not supposed to mean any more then face value.

[Hawker23]

In reality, most parents feel guilty about EVERYTHING when it comes to thier children. They feel guilty when they don't get good grades, they feel guilty when a child becomes ill, they feel guilty when they have to punish them or say no, they feel guilty when something bad happens to them.

Most parents want to protect thier child from all ills of soceity, all problems and bumps in the road. And to give them EVERYTHING. But that is not, and cannot be the reality (lest the kid grow up to be a greedy, selfish brat.) And when they cannot protect their children from reality, or cannot allow them to become spoiled, they feel guilty. That's just human nature.

[smartbei]

DragTheWater
You are right; you have more real-world experiance then me. However, what is that composed of? Probably, much of it is talking to people, and hearing other opinions and viewpoints. So, if I may ask, why do you so easily dismiss the fact that I have talked to the very people I am accusing, and found that many of them spank not to teach or modify behaviour, merely to show anger. Granted, that will give immediate obediance and even medium-term obediance, depending on the circumstances, but studies do show that corporal punishment does not grant long-term obediance.

Now, the rest of your message pretty much deals with children being second-class citizens. I cannot argue with you there, it is a fact. Obviously, I am asking why they are second-class citizens, in the light of the constitution which clearly does not allow it.