Should it be criminal to smack children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LokentheWolf

But thats the thing isnt it? It isnt that hard to pick out someone who is a child abuser from someone who corrects. No matter how good a person is at being abusive, eventually he's/she's going to slip up. There will be a mark, or the person will loose their cool to harm someone enough to leave a mark.

All you really need are co-operative people, and a mother isnt going to support an abusive man and not fight back without getting some bruses of her own.

---

1. And a mark is suddenly proof of constant abuse? I suppose you've never acidentally bruised anyone or bruised yourself? If getting someone to be found guilty would be as easy as you think it is, there would be a lot of innocent people in jail.
2. Are you kidding me? Like I said, bruises are not evidence and a mother being scared of her husband and afraid to resist him is not that rare...

You make it sound so simple. As if, according to you, all you need is a bruise to convict someone. That's not how things go down in court. And that's only a good thing. It IS hard to separate abuse from educational smacking. Or does a parent belong in jail from the moment there is proof that he smacked his child, e.g. other people seeing it?

Abuse is far too heavy a crime to label every form of smacking abuse, and smacking shouldn't be criminalised. But it should be made clear that constant smacking that actually hurts (in child terms) is not tolerated. Don't get me wrong, I despise regular smacking, but I don't think it does the kid any good either if the parents are in jail for no apparent reason. There are a lot of things that parents and people in general do wrong, but they're not always a reason to convict someone of a serious crime.

The problem is that you can't know how it goes down in a household. You can't tell for sure if the smacking is a regular thing and the kid lives in almost constant fear of his dad (like I did), or if a kid is downright out of control and the parents have reached their last resort, smacking as a disciplinary tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

However, my concern is that in a courtroom, when a child abuser is in front of a jury, a crafty lawyer could just pull out some nice oratory to show that no, this person did not abuse their children, they just smacked them to teach them a lesson. The distinction between abuse and physical punishment is hard to define; in order to prevent child abusers from getting away from their crimes, smacking needs to be criminalised. Using your own example, under a legal system where smacking is legal, it is likely that both your aunt and your father would not be convicted (I base this on the fact (assumption?) that your aunt's abuse was not as bad as some of the cases where a jury said 'reasonable force had been used'). If smacking had been criminalised, realistically, though what your dad would've technically committed a crime, he would unlikely have been charged.

---

Crafty lawyers can make the sky green half the time. Even if it were criminalised half of them could probably find some sort of loophole or something.

Again notice your usage of 'reasonable force'. Believe me if a kid is marked, they don't feel 'reasonable force' was used unless the parents were at threat from the minor. I don't know of the NZ equivalents of our own but if a kid is taken to hospital here with unusual marks, bruises, whatever half the time before going to court the cops get called and sometimes if the parents seem responsible the child will be taken by DoCs (the Department of Community Services I think? That or child services or something). Legal peeps get VERY strict with usage of 'reasonable force' and if you have left marks or something it's an assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver

Again notice your usage of 'reasonable force'.

---

I'm using this term in context of what three juries in New Zealand decided was 'reasonable force' in terms of behavioural correction. As I have stated multiple times, one example was of a father who used a piece of wood to 'correct' his child/ren. It seems easy to define this as abuse, but in court it came out as acceptable (Lawyer must've made the sky pink with black polkadots).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RagnaToad

Abuse is far too heavy a crime to label every form of smacking abuse, and smacking shouldn't be criminalised. But it should be made clear that constant smacking that actually hurts (in child terms) is not tolerated. Don't get me wrong, I despise regular smacking, but I don't think it does the kid any good either if the parents are in jail for no apparent reason. There are a lot of things that parents and people in general do wrong, but they're not always a reason to convict someone of a serious crime.

---

The crime is technically assault under these provisions. The smack on a child is equated to hitting an adult, and I don't see how this is an unreasonable practice, as if a person on the street came up to you with a shoe, and spanked you on the bottom until you cried, you'd be entitled to lay assault charges, so why not children?

Also, parents are not going to jail for "no apparent reason". I heard on the radio today that police investigations of abuse on children (read: smacking) have increased 40% over the two years the law has been in place, but only three have been charged. I haven't been able to verify these statistics, but the news bulletin on New Zealand's classic rock station hasn't failed me before. NO ONE has gone to jail over it, but these three (at least) have had charges laid, and been put into anger management courses and community service roles. I suspect without these law changes, these parents would not have been charged at all, especially considering the precedent established. I'll try dig up details of these cases and post them here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

I'm using this term in context of what three juries in New Zealand decided was 'reasonable force' in terms of behavioural correction. As I have stated multiple times, one example was of a father who used a piece of wood to 'correct' his child/ren. It seems easy to define this as abuse, but in court it came out as acceptable (Lawyer must've made the sky pink with black polkadots).

---

How many juries are there may I ask? Three doesn't seem to be too many and there are a ton of legal people able to weasel a good outcome through loopholes, technicalities and other bullshit.

Strikes me kind of like when there's one or two muggings by people of one ethnicity and then suddenly people of this particular ethnicity are all violent or some shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver

How many juries are there may I ask? Three doesn't seem to be too many and there are a ton of legal people able to weasel a good outcome through loopholes, technicalities and other bullshit.

---

I believe based on loose recollection, that the first three or so juries on such cases were taken as precedent for future cases. So, while there are very few juries in this context, they are undeniably important, and their initial decisions impact on all future cases.

Quote:

---

Strikes me kind of like when there's one or two muggings by people of one ethnicity and then suddenly people of this particular ethnicity are all violent or some shit.

---

Are you referring to violence on Indian and Chinese students in Australian universities by any chance? I'd say the reciprocal violence by the immigrant students was fair in the circumstance (though I don't support violence in any form). Wait, how does this relate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

I believe based on loose recollection, that the first three or so juries on such cases were taken as precedent for future cases. So, while there are very few juries in this context, they are undeniably important, and their initial decisions impact on all future cases.

---

Until the next round of legal buggery? There's a reason I'm not a big fan of most legal systems in general. But then what do we know of the trials these juries were at? Was there any evidence the kids had been actually abused in all cases? I belive you or someone did mention somewhere one kid was beaten with some wood or something which is definetely an assault and therefore troubling, but were the other two cases of the same calibur?

Quote:

---

Are you referring to violence on Indian and Chinese students in Australian universities by any chance? I'd say the reciprocal violence by the immigrant students was fair in the circumstance (though I don't support violence in any form). Wait, how does this relate?

---

Moreso you get one or two lebanese kids in Sydney mugging people and then suspicion falls on the ethnicity in general. Totally not cool that, especially as you'll find the highest percentage of muggers are white. :lol:

As for the Chinese and Indian students 'reciprocal violence', I'm pretty sure they mostly went about it in a cool way. Like gathering together waiting for some dickhead to start with one of them. Legal too as the self defense clause here does state we can come to the defense of others as well as ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver

Until the next round of legal buggery? There's a reason I'm not a big fan of most legal systems in general. But then what do we know of the trials these juries were at? Was there any evidence the kids had been actually abused in all cases? I belive you or someone did mention somewhere one kid was beaten with some wood or something which is definetely an assault and therefore troubling, but were the other two cases of the same calibur?

---

From: Children's Issues | Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

Quote:

---

It was up to a jury to decide if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. This was interpreted by a jury in Napier in recent years to mean that it was reasonable for a father to hit his eight year old son eight times with a piece of wood 30cm by 2 cm – leaving linear bruising visible for days. Also in recent years a jury in Hamilton considered it reasonable for a father to hit his 12 year old daughter with a piece of hosepipe, leaving a raised 15cm-long lump with red edges on the girl’s back.

These cases formed the legal background against which police decided whether to prosecute or not when they come across similar instances of abuse. Thus beating children with pieces of wood and hosepipes was “reasonable” under the law.

---

The proposal in question aims to remove the law introduced in 2007, so that the above situation would again result (as the law would return to it's pre-2007 state).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

From: Children's Issues | Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand


The proposal in question aims to remove the law introduced in 2007, so that the above situation would again result (as the law would return to it's pre-2007 state).

---

OH NO YOU DIN'T!
Your source is a political party website. Hell, trusting Wikipedia without checking the sources would probably give more trustworthy information...
It reminds me of the Australian Labor Party's 'wonderful' internet [s]censorship[/s] filtering technology article on their website around this time last year they might actually have the balls to implement. Remember that with these kinds of people they'll sugarcoat what they do/want in an attempt to appeal to anyone not able to get past all the horrible biased information.

Any juries believing assault to be reasonable force deserve a slapping, but I'd think educating them on the terminology beforehand couldn't hurt the cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver

Your source is a political party website. Hell, trusting Wikipedia without checking the sources would probably give more trustworthy information...

---

And you have an alternative, unbiased source? All information around this issue will have an agenda, and why on earth would they quote facts and statistics that contradict their argument? My views are clear, here is but one source where my opinion has been informed. A political party is clearly biased, but not unreliable. I can assure you those examples are fact.

Quote:

---

Any juries believing assault to be reasonable force deserve a slapping, but I'd think educating them on the terminology beforehand couldn't hurt the cause.

---

Or resisting changes to the law that stopped this situation from perpetuating.

Quote:

---

1. And a mark is suddenly proof of constant abuse? I suppose you've never acidentally bruised anyone or bruised yourself? If getting someone to be found guilty would be as easy as you think it is, there would be a lot of innocent people in jail.
2. Are you kidding me? Like I said, bruises are not evidence and a mother being scared of her husband and afraid to resist him is not that rare...

---

1. No, a mark isnt sudden abuse, but like I said you need people who are alert to children who are constantly in the hospital. Yes it could be just accidents, or the kid playing. Think about it this way, if you sent someone to observe the household and view the way someone is treating the child, you could figure out how the person is treating the child and if there needs to be action taken. A sudden and random visit, or better yet someone hired by the State/country like a Private eye to observe would nab alot more child abusers. Maybe this is an unrealistic thought, but if you want to take kids away for "abuse" maybe you need to sit down a moment and watch the child with their parents.

2. If the above was instituted a woman who was afraid of her abusive husband would have more options. Secondly a woman who leaves her abusive husband with her child into a battered woman's shelter looses the child to the state because she's in an "unstable area". This system would get an abuser out of a home because an observer would have made a correct call on the subject. Then the child can grow in an abuse free enviornment. Now the only chalange is these stupid and unreasonable laws that people who dont even want kids to be put on a time out are trying to pass.

Quote:

---

And you have an alternative, unbiased source? All information around this issue will have an agenda, and why on earth would they quote facts and statistics that contradict their argument? My views are clear, here is but one source where my opinion has been informed. A political party is clearly biased, but not unreliable. I can assure you those examples are fact.

---

Generally take the word of the party, but also pay attention to what the opposing party says about the group and listen to them. We here in California have groups that want Mesures passed for schools, so we can increase the ammount of our taxes goes to schools so they can have better facilitys. But! When I was going to school, they never did anything to improve on our schools. Passing these mesures never improved the schools, they went into the pocket of the school board.

BUMP!

The actual results of the referendum are in!

11.81% of people responded yes - that the law should remain as is; with smacking criminalised (my vote).

87.60% of people voted no - that the law should be scrapped; smacking should not be illegal.

Voter turnout was 54.04% (1,622,000 people aged over 18 - lol New Zealand).

But Prime Minister John Key says he will not change the law regardless of the result. He personally believes that the law is working, and that it doesn't need to be changed. Some think he may just give new instructions to police.

Many people protested about the referendum itself by defacing the ballot paper. One person even smeared faeces on it. Choice bro.

Police so far have said the law's impact has been minimal. This can be interpreted two ways: that it does not prevent child abuse, or that it does not actually implicate parent's who are privately, and (some would say) appropriately smacking their children. They are expected to finish a formal report into the law's influence in a week's time.

EDIT:

Oh yeah. I've attached (parodies of) the campaign poster for awareness. The ugly orange guy is like our election mascot. There's a site where you can make your own parody versions. The original just repeats the question in this poll. These versions are much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

Are you arguing that it is a good idea for a children to learn that violence is a reasonable response to situations?

---

Are you arguing that physical discipline is the same thing as "violence"?

Quote:

---

Children take after their parents, and if parents are 'violent' (broadly defined), then this will become instilled as a reasonable reaction, as I believe is evident in many opinions stated here.

---

Historically, people who were physically disciplined as children have no problem physically disciplining their own children. People who were physically abused (violence) as children are at one end of the spectrum or the other, and rarely in between: either they think it's normal and abuse their children too, or they don't physically discipline their children at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Are you arguing that physical discipline is the same thing as "violence"?

---

I don't know if Alpha is, but I certainly am.

You have to see it from a child's point of view.

A smack on the head makes a bigger impression on a child than it would on an older person.

Like I mentioned earlier, a family should be a safe place as well as a representation of society, in some way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chez Daja

There are better ways to deal with naughty children. For example, if you lower yourself down to their level and talk with them, you can usually reason with them quite well. I would also use the suggestion of "naughty chair". These techniques usually prove well.
I also think that if you ignore the children when s/he is bad, then they learn not to be naughty because they won't be getting any attention out of it.
I think if the child has done something terrible, a single firm smack on the back or bottom is sufficient, but only then.

---

Don't forget it also depends on your definition of "children" depending on the age of some kids, a reasonable lecture won't do much justice. For the eight year old mentioned earlier, that’s just way too much, and unacceptable. No matter what the kid did, I don't think he deserved all that. The father obviously needed to get some penalty. Sometimes a good smack or two every now and then will do the trick. In bad cases it may be the Only solution. When kids get to the point where they think they know everything and refuse to listen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Are you arguing that physical discipline is the same thing as "violence"?

---

Yes, absolutely. It's a violent form of discipline. I don't see how one can argue that it is not. One can argue, however, that it should be encouraged or not (hence the referendum and this thread).

I agree with Rags that the home should represent society. Where I live, we don't have capital punishment and very few countries use violence as a corrective measure for criminals. Yet we use physical violence (discipline) for minor transgressions of family rules. Seems a bit wrong to me.

Quote:

---

Historically, people who were physically disciplined as children have no problem physically disciplining their own children. People who were physically abused (violence) as children are at one end of the spectrum or the other, and rarely in between: either they think it's normal and abuse their children too, or they don't physically discipline their children at all.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by 'historicallly', but I was smacked as a child, and I'll be hard pressed to do it to my own children. I simply won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TenseikenSlash

Sometimes a good smack or two every now and then will do the trick. In bad casses it may be the Only solution.When kids get to the point where they think they know evrything and and refuse to listen.

---

Maybe better parenting methods exist to prevent children getting to that point? Sounds like a spoilt rotten brat to me. Raising children to be polite and respectful does not mean you have to use violence, and it would take away the 'need' to use such punishment when a child 'refuses to listen', because if one raises them to be good mannered, then when are they not going to listen?

I think its a good way to teach a lesson
And good for disapline
Because my parents
Would smack me around a little sometimes
When id get out of line

My dad would call it the backyard
Hahaah
He would be like your getting the backyard
Or stop or its the backyard

And we would be like nooooooooooooooo lol noooooo
Hah so that straighten me and my brother up

But I wouldn't do that to my kids(I don't have any yet)
Because that shit hurt lol

There would have to be a better way to do it
Like take away stuff
Or grounded for a LONG time

Stuff like that
Extreme not painfull stuff.

there's better way that's less painful
To teach a lesson.

No. Back in the good ol' days, that was proper punishment, and it should stay such today. Nothing teaches them manners like smackin' em. Not too hard, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

No. Back in the good ol' days, that was proper punishment, and it should stay such today. Nothing teaches them manners like smackin' em. Not too hard, though.

---

That is mainly what this debate is about, how hard is to hard.

Personally I see alot of non-parents responding to this and I am really suprised at some of the things that have been said (not in a negative way mind you).

I am willing to throw this question out there on the playing feild. Do you think your veiws are tainted because you are not a parent?

I know personally that "talking", "rewards for good behaviour" and "time outs" tend to work most of the time but until you are faced with a 2 year old that is screaming, crying and throwing a tempertantrum you will not have the full awareness of the effectiveness of a small pat on the buttox.

Given some of you may have baby sat a child or two in your life time but this really teaches nothing of parenting. You still have the option to call the parents to come rescue you, and generally children react differently to people they are not around as much. When you have a child that is yours you don't have the "easy button" that staples offers.

Children at young ages do not have rational reasoning; that is fact. They do not understand that their actions and behaviours have consiquences. It is up to the parents to instill this into them and make them live it and breath it.
They do not listen as you or I would, in some instances "reasonable force" is required to discipline a child. As stated talking and time outs do not work in all situations with a screaming 2 year old that doesn't want to hear a word you say.

Here is another question, if a child is throwing a temper tantrum and you resort to putting that child into time out by physically picking him / her up and forcing them to go into time out; would you consider this a form of reasonable force? I ask this because you will have to use an amount of force with your hands to hold the kicking and screaming child and I assure light pressure will result in you dropping your child. Also by soime of the standards / logic that some of you have used could also be considered child abuse.

@ Meier:

I disagree.

This debate is about regular smacking VS. smacking as a last resort or a serious, rarely used punishment for kids.

And to answer your question: I am not a parent, but I don't think I'm biased in any way. Like I said before, smacking can indeed have a good effect. But if you're telling me that regular smacking is a good way to teach your kid about responsibility, I'd say your completely wrong.

We adults sue people or put them in prison for violence. I say for the sake of avoiding hypocrisy, you avoid using it yourself as a parent as much as possible.

Besides, (like yours truly already mentioned in a previous post) the frequency of a punishment is inversely correlated with the effect it will have. So a rare smack is perfectly suited for those rare occasions when nothing else seem to get through, to make the kid understand that its current behaviour 'made you use violence'.

And my question is: Were you smacked around regularly as a kid, fearing your dad when you had done something wrong?

If not, I could call you biased as well.

i think if its only a small smack and a no! the no i do not think it should be illegal. but a full force smack that leaves red marks yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Needwork

i think if its only a small smack and a no! the no i do not think it should be illegal. but a full force smack that leaves red marks yes.

---

What do you mean by 'red marks'?

You mean the skin that turns red after a smack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meier Link

I know personally that "talking", "rewards for good behaviour" and "time outs" tend to work most of the time but until you are faced with a 2 year old that is screaming, crying and throwing a tempertantrum you will not have the full awareness of the effectiveness of a small pat on the buttox.

---

This is kinda what I was trying to say, then again I don't have kids so I really wouldn't know.

Quote:

---

I am willing to throw this question out there on the playing feild. Do you think your veiws are tainted because you are not a parent?

---

probably, but at the same time eventhough we are not parents, we all listened and remember some of the things our parents have told us over the years. Let me clarify: My original post said, "when kids get to that age when they think they know everything and refuse to listen.." It's something my dad said I would do too( back in the day) the too, referring to my older brother. It's not like he was a horribly bad kid or anything, just mouthy and stubborn. That now and again smack is what would make him realize that he was wrong. I just assumed maybe all kids got to that point at some time or another, you think Meier??? you do have kids right?.

If thats true, then what do you do at that point??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meier Link

That is mainly what this debate is about, how hard is to hard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RagnaToad

This debate is about regular smacking VS. smacking as a last resort or a serious, rarely used punishment for kids.

---

Actually the debate should be about whether a smack should be illegal or not. Both of you believe that is should not be. The debate has grown into these areas as well, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meier Link

I see alot of non-parents responding to this and I am really suprised at some of the things that have been said (not in a negative way mind you).

I am willing to throw this question out there on the playing feild. Do you think your veiws are tainted because you are not a parent?

---

I'll concede that my views are 'tainted' by not being a parent, just as yours are 'tainted' by being a parent. But I was smacked as a child, and I have been a child, so I still remember sharply it's effects. Personally, I never felt a smack was necessary. Just the threat of a smack would send me running to my room, but even that threat was not needed. A sharp, no-return policy on withdrawal of privileges would have been enough. Something like, "your friend can't come over this weekend", or "you won't be able to have a birthday party". The punishment can be slid in proportion to misbehaviour.

In regards to say a two-year-old, these punishments are different. But I know that a tantrum is an act of attention-seeking, and the appropriate response is to just ignore it. To smack a child in such a state will just make the crying louder, and increase your level of irritation. I have seen the opposites: parents who have children who throw tantrums because they can't get a candy bar, and this is responded to in two ways. First is the one who ignores their child's demand, and just carries on around it. While the tantrum doesn't cease immediately, the child learns that a tantrum is not an effective way to get what they want. This is a lesson we all learn eventually. The second response is to smack the child to make it be quiet (and I've seen this at supermarkets). The tantrum might stop, but the crying does not. The child remains thoroughly uncooperative, and no one really wins. There is a third, and that is to give in and buy the chocolate bar. This stops the tantrum, but does not solve the prolem, and indeed makes it worse.

Quote:

---

Children at young ages do not have rational reasoning; that is fact. They do not understand that their actions and behaviours have consiquences. It is up to the parents to instill this into them and make them live it and breath it.
They do not listen as you or I would, in some instances "reasonable force" is required to discipline a child. As stated talking and time outs do not work in all situations with a screaming 2 year old that doesn't want to hear a word you say.

---

Do consequences have to be physical? Cant they be material? Like taking away a toy, for example.

Quote:

---

Here is another question, if a child is throwing a temper tantrum and you resort to putting that child into time out by physically picking him / her up and forcing them to go into time out; would you consider this a form of reasonable force? I ask this because you will have to use an amount of force with your hands to hold the kicking and screaming child and I assure light pressure will result in you dropping your child. Also by soime of the standards / logic that some of you have used could also be considered child abuse.

---

That is a question being asked by many in New Zealand who are afraid of this law. The answer is no: moving a child is not smacking them, it is just moving them. If one thinks that this is abuse, then it must be abuse to pick up your child to put them in the car. While some think this law is absurd, it is not that absurd.

I quote this for truth:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RagnaToad

We adults sue people or put them in prison for violence. I say for the sake of avoiding hypocrisy, you avoid using it yourself as a parent as much as possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

In regards to say a two-year-old, these punishments are different. But I know that a tantrum is an act of attention-seeking, and the appropriate response is to just ignore it. To smack a child in such a state will just make the crying louder, and increase your level of irritation. I have seen the opposites: parents who have children who throw tantrums because they can't get a candy bar, and this is responded to in two ways. First is the one who ignores their child's demand, and just carries on around it. While the tantrum doesn't cease immediately, the child learns that a tantrum is not an effective way to get what they want. This is a lesson we all learn eventually. The second response is to smack the child to make it be quiet (and I've seen this at supermarkets). The tantrum might stop, but the crying does not. The child remains thoroughly uncooperative, and no one really wins. There is a third, and that is to give in and buy the chocolate bar. This stops the tantrum, but does not solve the prolem, and indeed makes it worse.

---

legal or illegal...I’m on the fence....and I probably won't know for sure until I have kids of my own. But at the same time I wouldn't go so far as to call it a criminal offence, perhaps unnecessary. It's only criminal if you are abusing the child, then that’s exactly what it is ,abuse, not punishment. I do know that it is possible to tame your kids without physical punishment, a good example of that would be Nanny 911 :above:

(if you've seen it) but I don't think that everyone has the patience to to that, I know I probably won't.

To start off I am going to say what I am about to say are just statements and questions to further understand other peoples logics and thinking. I just want to throw that out there before I get accused of being defensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RagnaToad

And to answer your question: I am not a parent, but I don't think I'm biased in any way. Like I said before, smacking can indeed have a good effect. But if you're telling me that regular smacking is a good way to teach your kid about responsibility, I'd say your completely wrong.

---

I think if you reread any of my post in this thread you will find my responces deem spanking as a last resort. as you read through them you will notice I mention other ways of discipline and limit my usage of spankings to certain circumstances.

Quote:

---

We adults sue people or put them in prison for violence. I say for the sake of avoiding hypocrisy, you avoid using it yourself as a parent as much as possible.

---

Really are you going to compare a swift pat on the butt to vicious beatings and man handling? To me spanking a child has no relevance to the violence that is caused by adults going against adults.

Quote:

---

Besides, (like yours truly already mentioned in a previous post) the frequency of a punishment is inversely correlated with the effect it will have. So a rare smack is perfectly suited for those rare occasions when nothing else seem to get through, to make the kid understand that its current behaviour 'made you use violence'.

---

Agreed with for the most part.

Quote:

---

And my question is: Were you smacked around regularly as a kid, fearing your dad when you had done something wrong?

If not, I could call you biased as well.

---

If you are asking was I spanked for bad behavior as a child then I would have to say yes. If you are asking if my parents beat me then no. I feel there was nothing wrong with the way my parents disciplined me and I have no psycological defects because of it and I am sure that 98% of the free world that was disciplined in the same manner feel the same way.

People today are to much like tree hugging hippies. Look at the world today and the shape it is in, I would say it is alot more fucked up then it was when I was growing up.

Quote:

---

from Alpha
I'll concede that my views are 'tainted' by not being a parent, just as yours are 'tainted' by being a parent. But I was smacked as a child, and I have been a child, so I still remember sharply it's effects.

---

Honestly I couldn't disagree with you more on your first sentance. Being a parent changes your out looks on thing but in no way should be concidered tainted. As a parent you face these types of ordeals, they happen day to day and you have to figure out which forms of discipline is effective with each child. As a none parent you have yet to expiriance things that parents go through on a day to day basis.

Quote:

---

Personally, I never felt a smack was necessary. Just the threat of a smack would send me running to my room, but even that threat was not needed. A sharp, no-return policy on withdrawal of privileges would have been enough. Something like, "your friend can't come over this weekend", or "you won't be able to have a birthday party". The punishment can be slid in proportion to misbehaviour

---

So looking back you can say that you have never deserved a spanking? Is this in part because you think you did no wrong? Obviously you caught on that you didn't like spankings and the force of them quickly went away, I would say it was pretty damn effective.

As a 3 year old did you really comprehend "your friend can't come over this weekend"?

Quote:

---

Do consequences have to be physical? Cant they be material? Like taking away a toy, for example.

---

For this I will quote myself. "Children at young ages do not have rational reasoning; that is fact. They do not understand that their actions and behaviours have consiquences. It is up to the parents to instill this into them and make them live it and breath it.
They do not listen as you or I would, in some instances "reasonable force" is required to discipline a child. As stated talking and time outs do not work in all situations with a screaming 2 year old that doesn't want to hear a word you say. "

Like I said in responce to Ragnas question the discipline is determined by the actions of the child. Smacking / spankings is a last resort.

Let me ask you a question that was simular to the one I asked before but I will make it a little more blunt.

What do you do when "time outs" "talking" "taking privliges away" "ignoring" and "grounding" do not work.

Quote:

---

That is a question being asked by many in New Zealand who are afraid of this law. The answer is no: moving a child is not smacking them, it is just moving them. If one thinks that this is abuse, then it must be abuse to pick up your child to put them in the car. While some think this law is absurd, it is not that absurd.

---

I was not refering to the force it takes to lift a child into a car seat. I am refering to the force it takes to restrain a child as it is squirming in your hands while kicking and screaming. There is a major difference between the two.

Ok enough with the quotes, whew. Alpha you made mention about ignoring a temper tantrum so my next question to you would be what would you do if you where a parent ignoring your child that is throwing a tantrum and he / she realizes that he / she is not getting the attention that it wants and resorts to kicking holes in the walls of your house or throwing toys at your windows?

Sure you might try to say that "the parents showing violence" to the child is what encourages this kind of behaviour but then again I could blame it on TV as well. And in turn I can also say that most tantrums usually result in fits of rage from a child.

Sorry if this seems like some what of a rant haha. Like I said I am trying to see the full scope of every ones opinions.

The more laws you make, the more crimes you make and the more criminals you create. I'm not saying I approve or disapprove... It's not my place because I don't know what's right for everyone and even if I did, I'm not arrogant enough to want to enforce my moral authority.

I'm just saying that things aren't always so simple that there is a definite answer to every question.

-Sin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meier Link

Look at the world today and the shape it is in, I would say it is alot more fucked up then it was when I was growing up.

---

Dude, that's what every generation says.

And if you were referring to all the people that were disciplined with smacking on the right occasions, I'd say your right. But there's a difference between thát and parents who smack you for the smallest thing.

Not to (again) mention the hypocrisy of my dad lifting us up in the air and smacking us like we killed his favourite dog when me and my brothers were 'fighting' all to tell us how violence is not ok...

But then again, my dad went really mental. It wasn't like he smacked us to show us that we were doing something wrong, he actually saw no other way of being angry with us than 'hitting' us, violent facal expression always gave it away when smacking was due.

When I bite my teeth when I'm frustrated or something, my girlfriend says she doesn't like it, because it makes me look like my dad. She's seen him angry with my 14-year old brother... But yeah, that's all pretty personal stuff.

And I mostly agree with your idea of 'smacking', Meier.

I would hate it if I had to completely disagree with you. ;!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RagnaToad

What do you mean by 'red marks'?

You mean the skin that turns red after a smack?

---

yea thats what i mean, but like a full forceed smack where the skin is instantly red right there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Needwork

yea thats what i mean, but like a full forceed smack where the skin is instantly red right there

---

I don't see how a smack that doesn't make the skin a little red would have any effect on a kid over 8 years old.

I don't think whether the skin turns red or not should be the standard...

well no but i mean like hard enough that the kid falls back enough. or falls over or something.