Should it be criminal to smack children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meier Link

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.

---

I simply meant 'tainted' in that parents and non-parents generally hold different perceptions. I am influenced (tainted) by not having children as you are influenced (tainted) by not having children.

My personal 'taint' (I'd call it an 'ideal') is that violence is unacceptable. Sure, I have not been a parent, but I like to think that I will not smack, and before I become a parent I will mentally build that up, and work very hard to ensure I stick to this if/when I become a parent.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I have behaved very badly as a child. Until I was about eleven or twelve, I was a little sh*t. I was constantly in trouble at school, and uncooperative at home. But it wasn't smacks that turned me around, and I didn't think about smacks when I was misbehaving. The pain from a smack goes away what, in an hour? Less if it's "just a tap on the ass". But a policy of withdrawal of privileges is much more far-reaching. I would say that a smack wasn't that effective, and that a different punishment (the kinds of punishments my mother used) were more effective, and were non-violent. I deserved punishment, but I don't think anyone deserves a smack.

Quote:

---

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

---

Not as a three year old, no. But as a three year old, who, as you point out, lacks rational thought, does one think about a smack before the misbehaviour? The misbehaviour is going to occur regardless; so why smack?

Quote:

---

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. "

---

Again, why must these consequences be physical? I understand you use smacking as a 'last resort' - but even here, my question stands. If your child does not understand the concept of consequence, what good does a smack do? Surely just some brief parental inattention would be enough? That's what a tantrum is, after all, a cry for attention. Tantrums do not start when parents are not around.

Quote:

---

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

---

What do you do when smacking doesn't work? If it's really such a cure-all, why don't we just use it from the outset? That'd teach us some consequence.

And if all those things don't work, is smacking really going to work? Or are you just hurting your child because you're fed up?

Quote:

---

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.

---

I see. The answer is no. Using force to restrain is not the same as using force to smack. If restraint leads to pushing, then yes.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I would put them in a part of the house where there is very little for them to damage and for them to accidentally hurt themselves with. I would continue to ignore them, while monitoring them. When they begin to calm down, I would speak to them about their original bad behaviour, and how a tantrum is inappropriate. I would then make clear the privileges withdrawn. If the child is too young for that, I would wait for them to calm down. A child cannot keep screaming forever, they will have to come down at some stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinister

The more laws you make, the more crimes you make and the more criminals you create.

---

There have been twelve convictions since the law was changed. This proves that police are using discretion. I'm sure there have been more than twelve smackings since then, so that the only change here has been that police have more tools to prosecute abuse (in the traditional sense of the word). This has to be a good thing: no more can parents get away with hitting a child with a piece of wood, as per my previous (true) example.

The debate has grown to encompass the merits of smacking too. Which is appropriate, since all smacking is technically illegal here. You're just very unlikely to get charged for it. I still believe that it should not be used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Needwork

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

---

So what if the kid falls over?

I'm not pro smacking or anything (Cf. my first two posts in this thread). But to say that a kid falling over is the limit... That's totally random. You're picking one out of many situations and make it the standard.

I could think of numerous ways of hitting someone as hard as you can without him or her falling over, so the falling over seems rather irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

There have been twelve convictions since the law was changed. This proves that police are using discretion. I'm sure there have been more than twelve smackings since then, so that the only change here has been that police have more tools to prosecute abuse (in the traditional sense of the word). This has to be a good thing: no more can parents get away with hitting a child with a piece of wood, as per my previous (true) example.

---

That doesn't worry me...and I am glad to see them use an ounce of judgment upon their own conscience. What worries me are the extent to which such a law may be abused. You are all discussing the abuse of the nation's children. I am concerned with the abuse of the nation's laws.(technically, they are both disconcerting)

We don't want another rash of Nazism or some sort of McCarthy witch-hunt developing. I know that all sounds really rather paranoid and beside the point...but... There is such a thing as Irony. There is always a question how to interpret vague laws... Sometimes the interpretation can be somewhat...umm...impressionistic and can lead to some bitter tragedies.

Having made that disclaimer...I do not favor physical punishment against children. I think it's a little outdated and can be replaced by more effective methods. Certainly it's not how I will treat my children should I ever chance to have any.

-Sin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinister

There is always a question how to interpret vague laws... Sometimes the interpretation can be somewhat...umm...impressionistic and can lead to some bitter tragedies.

---

The law before this stated that parents could use "reasonable force" for the purposes of behavioral correction. What was deemed reasonable was clearly not reasonable, as I'm sure we can all agree. The most vague aspect is "reasonable force". Many would argue that reasonableness extends only to a light smack, as a last resort. But, the law is an ass, and this was interpreted stupidly and irresponsibly. Hence it was scraped, and hence the reason I vote to keep it that way.

Sure, it is technically illegal to smack children here, but if you really feel you should, the chances of being investigated, let alone prosecuted are incredibly small.

Making spanking criminal is like making abortion illegal. You are imposing your views on someone else's parenting skills. I am not saying to beat your kids, but people should be allowed to discipline their children how they see fit. I personally don't believe in smacking them around. I think it's wrong, but I can definitely understand why some parents believe that to be the only way. There are time I would love to do it, LOL. I'm no a bad parent, but they drive you INSANE !! Not to mention parenting is definitely 80% trial and error.

I was told there was as study done near by with mice. They put the mice in a box and attached a lever to the box. Every time the mice hit the lever they would either get a treat or get nothing. So the mice would continually hit the lever to se if they got the treat. After they became accustom to that the Dr's introduced a shock charge to the lever. They were surprised to find the mice still hitting the lever. What does this mean? Positive reinforcement will win every time. So maybe spanking seems like a great way to do things, but in my eyes praise does more.

However, when he does near death experience types of things he does get a pop, but it's not beating. It's a physical reinforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheesevixen

Making spanking criminal is like making abortion illegal.

---

Umm, what?

Quote:

---

You are imposing your views on someone else's parenting skills.

---

I think there are some things other people (read: the law) can have a say in. (Like what kind of physical punishment is considered 'ok'). I'm not for making it illegal either, as I mentioned. But I thought this argument was too general.

Quote:

---

I was told there was as study done near by with mice. They put the mice in a box and attached a lever to the box. Every time the mice hit the lever they would either get a treat or get nothing. So the mice would continually hit the lever to se if they got the treat. After they became accustom to that the Dr's introduced a shock charge to the lever. They were surprised to find the mice still hitting the lever. What does this mean? Positive reinforcement will win every time. So maybe spanking seems like a great way to do things, but in my eyes praise does more.

---

I agree with what you're trying to say, but comparing a fairly simple organism to a complex human being at an impressionable age isn't always fair. :)
But yeah, lots of tests like that give us more perspective.

I agree completely. It is too general. :) And maybe the abortion view is a little much....I know that is a sensitive subject. Just don't want someone to read my post and think I am ok with beating the shit out of your kids. :)

"Smacking" is an important tool of eduction, making it illegal is insane.
Eveyone talks about how it is outdated and how modern parents should talk, etc., but that's pure BS.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think you should smack your children all the time.
But there are situations when drastic measures are the only thing that works.
And often children don't care about talk, they'll only listen to force.
If you bring them up without ever smacking them, they might think whatever they do, they can get away with a little preaching. Later they will have trouble fitting into society's rules with that attitude.

I work a third shift job and the parents that bring their kids into the store let them run wild, making messes screaming from the other side of the store and so on, so I see the reason for physical punishment. If these parents would stop trying to talk to the little brats and actually punish them like I and many others were when I was little and misbehaved things would be much better for everyone and these kids will stop being little hellions.

i was at the movies and i saw a child yelling at his mother. i mean like "you f****** b**** shut the f*** up and let me see this damn movie!" if that was my child i would have smacked them right then and there. soo i am changing my thinking to no it should not be.

No, it should not be a crime to Smack your Child if he/or she is being Rude, or mean or something like that. It is a Parental Disciplinary Action when a Child Does something bad, and it is supposed to teach them how it feels to do something bad to others, but onto themselves. But try not to KILL, or Seriously Damage your Child by giving them a Big Smack, cause it can cause serious Damage to them, or possibly Kill them...Depending on how strong the Smack is, and how old your Child is. Only do it when your Child is Behaving Terribly...Like if they Punch someone for no Reason, or if they steal something...Or something like that. You can probly look at some sites that tell you how to take action on certain behaviers of your Child. Treat your Children with utmost Care, and Love & Support them, cause if you don't, They can turn out to be Druggies, or Criminals, and I know that none of you want that for a child. This is just my Opinion on some of the Experiences I had seen and been through. Anyway, Happy Posting :)

i agree with kento. but ya, thats how i was raised and i turned out fine. pretty much every one was raised like that turned out fine

I think that parents should be able to whip their children, because it teaches children not to misbehave, I mean tell me how this sounds. When a child is playing with knives and you whip them , they learn very quickly, "If I play with those then I will get whipped." but if you just yell at them then they really don't learn much at all. My parents whipped the hell outta me and I am all the more thankful for it as well.

This is a hard topic to discuss. I my opinion parents should be allowed to whip there children for doing things that are considered dangerous. I beleive that they should also be able to whip them for not listining and doing what you tell them. You have to teach your children in a way that they will understand to "Not do this". But then again some parents get carried away when it comes to whiping their children. More of a "I have the power" sort of thing and they use it when it's not needed. Some parents whip their children when they are frustrated with their own lives or if they are angry or depressed. This in my opinion is wrong. A child should be punished for something that they have done wrong. Verble yelling or screaming at them will only tell them that the parent is mad at them and it hurts their feelings. Do this enough times and children can develop problems at a early age. Such as trust issues and depression. The again there are some parets who whip their children because it stimulates them sexually. This in my opinion is very wrong. Whiping a child to teach the right from wrong should not be a criminal act or child abuse. Yet whiping a child for diffirent reasons such as i mentioned above is wrong in my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megidolaon

"Smacking" is an important tool of eduction, making it illegal is insane.

---

I bet people said that when some clever person suggested to get rid of corporal punishment in schools. We don't get the strap at school anymore, but it's not like we suddenly have a generation of criminals.

And I think you guys are missing the point. Smack or don't smack; but it should be a blanket crime to prevent child abusers getting away with much worse than 'corrective' punishment.

I voted no, on the basis a "Smack" would be something such as punching a child. I do however agree with "Smacking" their arse, when they have done wrong. I see no issue with that.

If the child has commited a minor crime like breaking the rake or toy of theres on purpose than grounding is permitted. If the child commits a medium crime like cussing at their parents then a spanking is to be at hand for the child. If the child has commited a high priced crime like stealing than grounding and spanking, and extra chores are to be given, but if the child goes to the extremes of hitting their father or mother than still no smacking is permitted just threats like I'll send you to a reform school, but don't actually send them.

Spanking in my opinion should not be criminal. I was spanked as a child for breaking rules and things nature. The only thing that should be criminal is when parents take it too far and abuse there children. Other than that spanking is a legit form of punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

I bet people said that when some clever person suggested to get rid of corporal punishment in schools. We don't get the strap at school anymore, but it's not like we suddenly have a generation of criminals.

---

Tell that to the security guards here.
I mean seriously, talking to some of the older guards has made me realise even going back a decade or two when spanking was still more widely used there was a much lower number of vandals and the kids actually had some level of respect for the authorities, even if some still clearly resented them.

Give an inch and they take a mile and those little bastards know they're more or less untouchable unless they try to directly assault a guard.

I don't think smacking should be illegal. As long as you are not beating the child then it should be OK. My mom slaps my wrist whenever I do something I'm not supposed to do. It works. It hurts my feelings if she is really mean about it but it works. I remember just a few weeks ago I was trying to get into some cookies that weren't meant for me and she gave me a little slap on the wrist (not a hard one) I won't be sneaking into cookie jars anytime soon. When I was younger both my parents used to give me a slap on the butt. It seemed to work. Now that I'm older though the butt is a no zone area (especially) for my dad so they usually slap my wrist if I'm misbehaving. But I think I'm a good kid compared to some other kids I know and I still love my parents. The only time my mom slapped me on the face was a few years ago I had this really stupid temper tantrum. I guess I had it coming. I don't know if there is a point in this post besides. It all depends on how you slap them and how hard or what for. Like the cookie jar was more of a playful warning slap like "Not for you go away" and the other times were like "stop doing that" or "don't do that ever again"

well it depends because i was abused as a child...my step father struck me mulltiple times in the face with a steel spiked belt...so on those terms yes it should be illegal. The reason why he did this is because my little sister smashed a giant mirror and blamed me and this made him mad and when i said i didnt he said he would make me say the truth so for a good ten mintues he beat me and there was nothing i could do about it. I never gave in so it hurt alot.

I take this topic very seriously but I'm a very logical person...My fiance was abused when she was younger and ever since that I've Hated parents who even touch their kids as punishment...My mom used to push me around a lot. But even though I think they should ****ing die, there is a difference between smacking a child and beating the hell out of them. It should be criminal but only to certain points. Let's say, I smack my child in the arm for calling me a worthless piece of shit, is that really worth jail time.

Alot of people get way too carried away with this. There is a tremendous difference between beating a kid within an inch of his/her life, and giving him/her a swat on the ass to condition them in favor of not repeating an activity. SPanking asa punishment is just classic conditioning. You pair a bad behavior with a bad consequence, the child is less likely to repeat it. People talk about drawbacks like the child fearing or resenting you and all that crap. These people neglect the subtle difference between the swat and the belt whipping. A spanking is supposed to be unpleasant stimulus, not a deathblow. Know the difference, and you'll do fine.

abuse and discipline are 2 different things and should be treated as such. If a kid says something he/she isn't supposed to like some random profanity, a tap on the mouth is acceptable.....a punch in the face is abuse.