Should it be criminal to smack children?

[Alpha]

Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence [in New Zealand]?

Currently, in New Zealand, there is a citizens-initiated referendum on the above question. Before a change in legislation, Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) said that "reasonable force" could be used by parents towards their children in the context of "parental correction". "Reasonable force" is in the context of the situation.

There was then an amendment by the Green Party, with the effect being that the statutory protection for use of force by parents and guardians was removed. Children are now in the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force (assault) is concerned. The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act, a comparatively new provision in the criminal law.

The pro-smacking lobby then went around and collected enough signatures to repeal the amendment. The referendum is controversial for a number of reasons; firstly, it will cost $9 million; secondly, many of the so-called 'nanny state' perversions and criminal convictions on 'good parents' never eventuated.

The pro-smacking lobby argues that parents who smack their children can still love their children, and will be unduly punished with criminal convictions. They are usually from the political right, and resent most influence by the state in their lives.

The anti-smacking lobby argues that smacking is an outdated punishment that does more harm than good to children. If parents don't want criminal convictions for being 'good parents', then they shouldn't smack children, or so they say.

As a child, my siblings and I (excluding my disabled brother, of course) were smacked. Not regularly, and only if we had been especially bad. I still remember the fear I felt just by Dad waving his slipper in the air. Sure, it probably did me some good... or did it? I don't believe such punishment was necessary, and probably only contributed to a level of mistrust towards my father. I will not smack my children when I am a father, so I am squarely in the anti-smacking camp.

I will be voting on the submission in early August, and would like to hear what the intellectual minds of TFF have to say on the matter. If possible, draw in your own experience, and the experience of your home country. I would also be very interested in hearing what parents have to say, as it is likely that their perceptions differ strongly from mine.

If someone wants some more information on the issue above, just say so in the thread, and I'll put some links together.

EDIT: Found this link to Section 59, which is compulsory reading to post in this thread. If you don't understand it, have a look at a few of the links that I've inserted a few posts down (#8). http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM328291.html

[RagnaToad]

I'm really anti-smacking as an educational tool, but I don't think it should be criminalised. It can be a last resort on rare occasions.

Children are not individuals that can take anything and forget about it. If a parent chooses to smack a kid, and I'm not even talking about actually hurting it, he/she should realise what an impact it has on a kid. Children don't forgive and forget.

That's where there should be boundaries. Smacking kids around shouldn't be a regular punishment (like it was in my home when I was a kid). If a kid is outright arrogant and totally out of control, ignoring and neglecting every house rule and behaves totally inapropriate and doesn't realise the consequences of its behaviour, a smack cán have a good effect. It makes the kid realise "woh, I really did something that is NOT tolerated around here". But if you're going to smack your kids for every little thing they do wrong, that's just giving the wrong example. If I was fighting with my brothers when I was young, my parents would break up the "fight", tell us we were doing something wrong, and then smack us around. That is just plain hypocrisy and it has made me so that I don't respect my parents nearly as much as I (probably) should.

Also, as mentioned earlier, it's not the "hurting" part that can have serious effects on their minds, but the simple act of violence as a response to something that is out of order. Like I said, smacking a young kid when it has purposely done something really bad that hurts you as a parent can be a sad but effective means TO MAKE A POINT ON RARE OCCASIONS, MAYBE. But you should never make a habit out of it.

My parents never bruised me or anything, and if they have it would have been an accident, but the smacking around (and my dad's general violent attitude) and that threatening raised hand has had an effect on me, without any doubt. My dad's violent attitude is a feature of him I can't forgive him for and one of the reasons why I hate him.

As a conclusion:
The nature of a kid's home is incredibly influential on the way he manages to survive in society. You shouldn't teach your kids that violence is a normal way of punishing someone for his wrongdoings. Don't underestimate the bad effects of the "simple" act of smacking a young, highly influential individual. Try to keep in mind that the parents are the biggest influence in a young kid's life. Don't waste that opportunity, they grow up fast.

So yeah, not a fan...

[RamesesII]

Children are not individuals that can take anything and forget about it. If a parent chooses to smack a kid, and I'm not even talking about actually hurting it, he/she should realise what an impact it has on a kid. Children don't forgive and forget.

That is the whole point Rags, when you smack a child whether it hurts or not the main aim is to instill in the childs memory that what they were doing to receive the punishment in the first place is wrong so every time they see the object or activity the remember the smack they relieved and refrain from doing it. The same way an adult mind tells us not to touch a fire because it is hot even if we have never been burnt before earlier in our life either our Barents have taught us that it is hot and we have remembered or been punished for touching something hot etc etc.

The point is they link that activity with either the shock of the smack or the pain if the smack is given that way and so they don't do it because they know that it is associated with pain or shock.

That's where there should be boundaries. Smacking kids around shouldn't be a regular punishment (like it was in my home when I was a kid). If a kid is outright arrogant and totally out of control, ignoring and neglecting every house rule and behaves totally inapropriate and doesn't realise the consequences of its behaviour, a smack cán have a good effect. It makes the kid realise "woh, I really did something that is NOT tolerated around here". But if you're going to smack your kids for every little thing they do wrong, that's just giving the wrong example. If I was fighting with my brothers when I was young, my parents would break up the "fight", tell us we were doing something wrong, and then smack us around. That is just plain hypocrisy and it has made me so that I don't respect my parents nearly as much as I (probably) should.

Yes this is true there is boundries it is just up to the individual parents themselves whether to respect those boundries or not. When a child is doing something that may injure or hurt or be life threatining then yes a smack should be in order it enhances the effect of the reprimand of the action but it should also be followed by a stern talk to the child no matter what the age you need to stop them calm them down and explain why they got a smack or was punished for what they just did.

Also, as mentioned earlier, it's not the "hurting" part that can have serious effects on their minds, but the simple act of violence as a response to something that is out of order. Like I said, smacking a young kid when it has purposely done something really bad that hurts you as a parent can be a sad but effective means TO MAKE A POINT ON RARE OCCASIONS, MAYBE. But you should never make a habit out of it.

That's true you should never make a habit of smacking and use it as a last measure, i myself have different steps to deal with my children depending on the scale of what they are doing wrong it usually starts with me asking nicely to stop what they are doing and then i say it again but in a serious tone in my voice the third step is to warn the child after counting to three the will receive timeout or a smack but usually i count further to three because as soon as they hear me start to count they get their act together and do what i asked them or stop. Yes it does affect the child in the long run i was smacked as a child hell my mother went through some wooden spoons with me haha and i smack my children when it is required but if your were not to smack a child then i can only assume that when that child becomes a adult and has children that he/she will also not smack their own children depending on the personality.

My parents never bruised me or anything, and if they have it would have been an accident, but the smacking around (and my dad's general violent attitude) and that threatening raised hand has had an effect on me, without any doubt. My dad's violent attitude is a feature of him I can't forgive him for and one of the reasons why I hate him.

I remember my dad used to get his leather belt fold it grab the looped end and the open end and pull both ends to make a cracking sound holy hell it always scared the crap out of us hahaha and i just remembered he always had a grimace that he would pull that scared us well but he never hit us with the belt even after he cracked it.

Anyway in answer to the original question i don't think it should be criminally convicted because than at least 50% of the world or whatever country would be in jail or have criminal convictions. I think it is utterly ridiculous that you can't smack your child in public or get scolded for reprimanding you child in public and funnily enough the ones that do scold or stare are usually the ones without kids and when we catch people watching we approach them and ask the nicely "Do you have Kids" and the answer is usually no and we say 'Then you can't judge' which is true unless you have kids you can't judge or scold parents for how they raise their own children, either that or we ask them if they want to take them home and the quite quickly say no hahaha it is funny to watch of course we would never send our kids home with someone else but it is amusing.

What i found the biggest help is to go to the child's perspective and act from there especially with tantrums so i ask myself why are they throwing a tantrum and then act from there.

[Clint]

A little slap on the ass for doing something bad is fine, as long as it doesn't bruise the child in any way, but when you go out of your way to smack your child across the face or to the point where it leaves marks, then you're just asking for your child to grow up with a low self-esteem, a higher chance of becoming addicted to drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes, or some other negative crap like that.

Hitting anybody as a punishment is abuse, although I do it to hookers all the time, but then I get in trouble with the pimp, but that's a topic for another time. And kids are still developing, so if you hit a kid, he going to remember. Maybe not consciously, but that memory of being hit gets stored anyway, unconsciously, and effects how that child grows, that child's reflexes, ways of thinking, and ultimately who the child will become in adulthood. Hit a kid to discipline, and he'll be ****ed up. Teach a kid discipline through ways in no was associated with violence, and he'll be much more likely to not be ****ed up later in life.

[Meier Link]

Based off what I read I think the main problem is that the term "smack" and "reasonable force" are not limited to a clear definitions. One parents idea of reasonable force might be something completely different then that of anothers.

As I have stated in the past, I do believe in spankings. They are very affective but they are only used as a last resport around my house hold. Given they are not hard but they do make a sound that scares the bejesus out of my son. Now all it takes is the warning one is coming and he straightens up and flies right; most of the time.

Maybe I am barbaric in my way of parenting but like I said it is affective.

Now as for smacking kids around, if that is definitive to shoving kids down, bruising or anything that is actually going to cause more then a breif second of actual pain then I am against it. There is no reason to use that much force when disciplining a child.

Dragoon that belt story is halarious and actually hits home on a few levels, my father would something simular. My mother used some of the same ideals, she would make me go get her belt and hang it on a door knob. If that didn't settle me down I had to bring it down the hall and hang it on my door. If that didn't settle me down we had to go into my room and she would use it on me lightly (key word lightly). It was enough to scare the hell out of me to where that belt probably only made it into my room 2 more times in my life haha.

Before I get to much more into this I will put a request out there so I have a more defined responce: Alpha do you have a link to this referendum and the Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961)?

[ekimeinna]

for me disciplining children like that is another way of raising them good... my parents were so strict and they even use their belt for us so that we will do good.

I don't know nowadays, and i don't really understand why parents needs to be accuse of disciplining the kids? ok let's say they think it is part of abusing children but what about by means of disciplining kids? Yeah, for me i will accept those crazy parents who really misuse smacking by doing it with no love for their kids (of course, like they about to kill them, you know, just principle).

My opinion, and my principle-to-be when i became a parent i will of course just spank my kids (with love) to help them to realize that what they are doing is not right. The suggestion should be this, you should do it while no other people can see it, should be inside the room of the child, then after that (of course he or she will be crying) you should hug him or her to show that you love him or her and you care for her. That must be a simple principle by disciplining them... i don't know but that's what i've notice, a lot of kids today never respects anyone, especially their parents because they don't have enough discipline to do what is right!!

For me, i am so thankful for my parents because they love me by doing some discipline to me and the rest of my siblings...right now i am proud of it... hope that some of you that has a parents like that should be thankful... now if any parent is doing something that he really smacking his child so hard and like almost killing it, then that's another story!! he should be in jail!

[Furore]

I think the spank needs to be reintroduced as a higher used method of discipline. I've noticed that in these times where kids get punished with a timeout or something, most make it a moot point by playing videogames or keeping themselves amused while being 'punished'.

I notice two things increasing with kids who weren't given a good smacking when they did the wrong thing. The first is just as they didn't fear their parents they don't tend to fear or even respect authority later on and the second is that some of these individuals get overly sensitive about really stupid things like how something is worded.

I'm not a fan of parents who go overboard as a minority tend to do in most places, but removing the ability to properly discipline a kid just leads to more anti-social behaviour later down the track. Get spanking parents!

[Alpha]

Based off what I read I think the main problem is that the term "smack" and "reasonable force" are not limited to a clear definitions. One parents idea of reasonable force might be something completely different then that of anothers.

Yes, you'll find this is very much at the core of much of the debate. In the first link I've put here, you'll read how a jury decided 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."

Maybe I am barbaric in my way of parenting but like I said it is affective.

I'm not a parent, but I have been a child, and I feel that alternative punishments would have been effective. I can't speak for all children, however.

Now as for smacking kids around, if that is definitive to shoving kids down, bruising or anything that is actually going to cause more then a breif second of actual pain then I am against it. There is no reason to use that much force when disciplining a child.

I read a letter to the editor of my local rag, where a person argued that it was ludicrous that a parent had been put through anger managment classes and monitored by Child, Youth and Family (CYF) for pushing his child onto the ground THREE times, because he didn't want to play in a game of rugby. I felt disgusted reading this person argue that this was good parenting.

Dragoon that belt story is halarious and actually hits home on a few levels, my father would something simular. My mother used some of the same ideals, she would make me go get her belt and hang it on a door knob. If that didn't settle me down I had to bring it down the hall and hang it on my door. If that didn't settle me down we had to go into my room and she would use it on me lightly (key word lightly). It was enough to scare the hell out of me to where that belt probably only made it into my room 2 more times in my life haha.

I better find out if threatening to use force is criminalised as well (unless the submission is successful). It's an important distinction.

Before I get to much more into this I will put a request out there so I have a more defined responce: Alpha do you have a link to this referendum and the Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961)?

It's quite hard to find something that's low on the legal jargon, but is unbiased, so I'll point out what perspective each link holds.

Children's Issues | Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (The NZ Green Party states it's point of view here. I'll admit, I'm biased; we all are. I voted Green in the last election, so this is mostly my opinion also. It states issues with the original S.59, but it's not going to state anything to the contrary. Also, the small tag at the end referring to a referenda about confusing language in submissions is in relation to the wording of the topic question, which was written by a pro-smacker. If you analyse it, it implies that a smack is a good thing, when it should try to be a little bit more neutral, IMO.)

Child discipline law update | Families Commission (This is a strange one, same perspective as the first, but strange in that the Families Commissioner (head of this organisation) is actually pro-smacking.)

Ahhh, here we are: Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 July 2009), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation (Section 59 itself. PLEASE READ THIS. It will be reposted in the Topic Post. Note how subsection 2 presides over subsection 1. In otherwords, no matter what number 1 says, force cannot be used for correction. Thus it is New Zealand law that a parent/caregiver can be prosecuted for using force to correct a child's behavior. This was inserted 2 years ago, and is what the submission is trying to get removed.)

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index....Section_59.pdf (dated in the sense that it was a submission to stop the 2007 change to S.59, but can still be read as an argument to support the current referendum (pro-smacking). Generally, Family First is quite right wing, and doesn't have huge support in NZ.)

www.voteno.org.nz | welcome (goodness, what a well-organised site. It is clearly pro-smacking, and has a good argument for such a stance, very easy to understand, and has some good links.)

[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 childre 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 sufficiant, but only then.

I don't believe constant smacking does the child any good because it only instills violenence as an end to problems. I also don't think making a child stand in the corner in a room full of people is a good idea, either.

[Pete]

I'm all for the smacking of unruly kids. However, I think that it only extends as far as your own kids. I would never smack someone else's kid, nor would I ever allow someone else to smack one of mine.

I feel that kids remember pain, and will do what they can to avoid it, because it just sucks. When I was a kid, and I did something wrong, depending on the offense, I would get anywhere from a good whallop on the ass to the wooden spoon. AND I got my videogames and TV time taken away for a week.

I turned out just fine.

I feel like it's up to the parents to properly raise their kids, and it's up to them to make sure their kids don't turn into complete **** ups. If giving them a whack on the ass helps that, then good. I feel that so many parents today are simply allowing their kids to take control of the situation because of this. Sending a kid to their room doesn't do anything, because they have TV and videogames. You punish them, and they get rewarded. If you give them a good whack, they'll remember that, and if you do it justly and telling them why what they did was wrong, they'll remember and learn.

Or, in the case of my brother they'll just become really sneaky so as not to get hit, but that's another story.

I'm also a big fan of making kids do yardwork and exercise when they do something wrong. I would get hit, have to do 100 pushups and situps and then have to pull weeds in my grandpas yard for a day. Yeah, I didn't screw up too much.

I've also gotten threatened with practically everything you can imagine. Belts, baseball bats, whatever was within arms reach really. It was never used, but it scared the shit out of me. My dads favorite was to threaten to send me to the "home" where parents sent kids that were bad. Other times I was threatened with getting sent to public school, cause the public school by me was BAAAAAAAAD. I always straightened up

But to reiterate, hitting your kids isn't that bad a thing, so long as YOU hit YOUR kids. If everyone hits them, then there's a serious problem. It's also a big problem if you leave a bruise. It's one thing to have a red handprint on an asscheek, but anything that changes color after a day is a serious problem.

[Darkdragoon]

No one should smack their children, it's just wrong!!!
My dad smacked, and threatened us with pan's, belt's, and paddle's. And guess what my brother did? Hung himself.

[Meier Link]

No one should smack their children, it's just wrong!!!
My dad smacked, and threatened us with pan's, belt's, and paddle's. And guess what my brother did? Hung himself.

Do you really think that was the cause of what happened or do you think he might of had some kind of mental instability? There are thousands of possibilites that could have ended with a result like that and in all actuality any one other then him saying why he did it is just throwing out stipulation.

Given suiside is a topic all in it's self in this section of the forum.

Did he leave any evidence stating that "I did this becuase dad spanked me"? (Retorical question here, please don't respond to me in this thread if you do want to respond, send me a PM or VM). Alot of times when it comes down to things like that there is alot more to it then discipline issues.

Also I will let the mod of this section (Chez) tell you what else is wrong with your post.

Back on topic, I am currently reading through all of the links you've provided Alpha and I will make a more difinitive responce when I get the chance. Son is sick so it might take me a little while. I might just edit this post and add more content to it.

[RagnaToad]

I'm surprised by how many of you justify the use of smacking a kid as a response to bad behaviour.

Doesn't it seem wrong to teach a kid how to behave in life but punishing it yourself by physical abuse (which smacking is in a way)? (Cf. my example of me and my brothers fighting in my previous post.) You shouldn't waste the opportunity of teaching your child some basic values (love, respect, discipline etc.) by just using violence as a response to its wrongdoings. If you're going to use smacking as a last resort, you should make sure that the child understands that its behaviour was só intolerable that it had violence as a result.

You can teach your kid about tolerance, respect and reason all you want. If you're going to smack it for every little thing, you're showing it that violence is a normal response to wrongdoings in real life. The home of a child should be both a safe place and a reflection of how an individual should act in society.

After all, isn't it the challenge of being a parent to learn your child to argue and take responsibility for its actions without always lowering yourself to the level of physical abuse? That's just giving the wrong message to a highly impressional person.

P.S. I'd like to know if those who are justifying frequent smacking have had the pleasure of being smacked around as a kid themselves.

Rags

[Darkdragoon]

he didnt have mental issue's. Well may be his docter killed him. She made him take all these pills. also everbody hated him, called him gay.

[Alpha]

he didnt have mental issue's. Well may be his docter killed him. She made him take all these pills. also everbody hated him, called him gay.

Meier said you could VM (Visitor Message) or PM (Private Message) him in response to this. If you don't have anything to contribute to this discussion, please refrain from posting here.

You can teach your kid about tolerance, respect and reason all you want. If you're going to smack it for every little thing, you're showing it that violence is a normal response to wrongdoings in real life. The home of a child should be both a safe place and a reflection of how an individual should act in society.

I'd just like to take this a little out if context. Actually, quite a lot out of context. In terms of two countries having a disagreement, what should be the first, and main, approach? Answer: diplomacy (not war). When a child behaves inappropriately, what should be the first, and main, approach? Answer: talking to the child, time outs, etc. I'm a pacifist, war isn't an option.

I know a lot of you have said that smacking is a last resort, but why? Is it because that is how we have been raised? Maybe if your non-violent approaches to correction and discipline are not working, you should try some new, possibly more effective, non-violent approaches. There are plenty of methods. As it has been said, children do not forget violence. This fact should not be exploited in order to pass on a message about correct behaviour. Children do not forget disappointed parents, and nor do they continue to show attention-seeking behaviour when they are no longer getting attention. There are viable alternatives to smacking children, that can be equated to effective diplomacy in terms of rogue states.

The issue at hand here is really that people have used the excuse "reasonable force" to justify harming their children in order to 'correct' their behavior. It's a shame that these parents don't realise that what also needs 'correcting' is their response to their children. As a child, I did not think my Dad loved me when he smacked me. After a smack, I would go and cry in the cupboard under the stairs for an hour or so. When my Dad came to coax me out to have dinner or something, I wouldn't let him touch me at all. Instead, I would sprint around him and go seek solace in my mother, who never smacked. I struggle to see how people (such as that guy in the video in the last link I posted) can say that they are "loving parents who smack their children". To me that's an oxymoron, as I never felt any love when I felt that slipper on my ass.

[LokentheWolf]

I was punished as a child, and I'm fine. Excessive abuse however is wrong and should be punished. It's annoying when so many people think that a spanking or corrective punishment is wrong.

I refer to when I was little watching Tom and Jerry, I thought it would be a good idea to stick a butter knife into an electical outlet because when Tom did it, it looked funny/fun. My father spanked me a few times and after I had cried it off he said that the reason he'd done that was to give me an example of how much pain I would have been in should I have actually done it. And then extrapolated telling me that it would have been much much worse if I'd actually been able to pull it off. I think that if I had been told no, and had the butter knife taken away, I would have tried later on and commited suicide. (Not intentionaly mind you but still.)

Lately here in America we've had Child Services take kids away from their parents due to spanking, and spanking laws have been put into effect. Let me tell you that this is by far the dumbest thing you can do to your child. I see the generations after mine, and notice that their morals and etheics are decaying. Because there was no one there to tell them no and have a firm hand/spanking for correction, we live by this stupid thought now a days that children will learn reasoning on their own. Want to know what my reasoning skills were when I was small? If I ran away, by myself, out into the street, I got a spanking. Is that unfair? Unreasonable? At the time, yes it was. Nothing would happen to me when I ran out into the street. Nothing ever hit me the few times I did it. But think, now with these years of wisdom, a little 2 foot nothing out in front of a car. SPLAT. Nothing but a nice bloody smear on the road.

And in this day and age, a kid who gets punished looses his parents, or if they go with the verbal repermand every time, doesnt learn the lesson, dies, and the parent gets punished anyway. Its insane...

Now going over board is wrong, beating a kid with a hose (even a belt if you ask me), or some other weapon is wrong. Locking them up in a dark closet, detaining them for days at a time is wrong. When your kid gets older and understands that there rules and regulations they still arent above physical punishment. If your child strikes you, then you have every right to fight back. Same as anyone on the street. And Im talking a 16-17 year old who think's he hot stuff.

[MossNoth]

Beating children is wrong.

Disciplining children is right.

Children don't develop logical reasoning skills until around age 7. Most children only understand physical methods of discipline. One cannot try to verbally reason with a child and expect them to completely understand about action and consequence. That, in itself, is illogical. One must be physical with the vast majority of children in order for them to not become belligerent and unruly.

I will add that I do not believe it is right to use an instrument, such as a belt or cane, to punish a child, as this causes fear of the object of punishment, rather than fear of being punished for wrongdoings. Using an instrument also shows, on a subconcious psychological level, that the parent would have the children fear the instrument instead of themselves in the case of punishment. Open hands, not fists or feet, should be the only objects used to punish.

As a final statement, I will say this: physical discipline saved my life.
If my father had not given me a perfuntory smack --not a beating, simply a swift-yet-sharp smack-- on the rear, when I was four, to dissuade me from running out into the street, I would likely not be alive today. The same applies to other situations in which I was acting like an idiot child.

[Alpha]

Beating children is wrong.

Disciplining children is right.

Yet in the rest of your post, you talk about how smacking children is neccessary. Criminalising all forms of physical punishment for corrective purposes will not allow more serious child abuse to take place. A jury in NZ decided that a father beating his child with a plank of wood was acceptable in the circumstance. Criminalisation will not allow this.

Children don't develop logical reasoning skills until around age 7. Most children only understand physical methods of discipline. One cannot try to verbally reason with a child and expect them to completely understand about action and consequence. That, in itself, is illogical. One must be physical with the vast majority of children in order for them to not become belligerent and unruly.

Have you stopped to consider some of the implications of this? Allowing parents to smack their children will create children who mistrust their parents, who fear their parents. Rags and I have both cited our personal experience to illustrate this fact. De-criminalising physical punishment (as that's what it is where I'm from) will provide abusive parents with the excuse of "reasonable force". To me, the only logical response, on order to safeguard such children, is a blanket ban on smacking children. I'm no child psychologist, but I believe children can learn without resorting to physicality. Children respond to verbal praise. Saying their artwork is nice will generate pride in the child, just as a stern warning or ignoring of attention-seeking behaviour will generate other feelings of parental disappointment. Smacking sends a message that parents "hate me", whereas 'talkings to' will send a message that the behavior is frowned upon, but because the parent didn't actually hurt me, they "still love me".

I will add that I do not believe it is right to use an instrument, such as a belt or cane, to punish a child, as this causes fear of the object of punishment, rather than fear of being punished for wrongdoings. Using an instrument also shows, on a subconcious psychological level, that the parent would have the children fear the instrument instead of themselves in the case of punishment. Open hands, not fists or feet, should be the only objects used to punish.

Can a parent themself become the object? After a smack, I feared my Dad (and not his slipper, mind you), because I knew what pain he could cause. I didn't think of my behaviour beforehand, I just thought of my throbbing ass checks.

As a final statement, I will say this: physical discipline saved my life.
If my father had not given me a perfuntory smack --not a beating, simply a swift-yet-sharp smack-- on the rear, when I was four, to dissuade me from running out into the street, I would likely not be alive today. The same applies to other situations in which I was acting like an idiot child.

What if your parent had held your hand when near the road, and taught you proper road safety every time you went to cross the street? Would you have still run onto the street? No, simply because your hand would've been held, and because, through repetition, you would know road routine, consisting, most importantly, of crossing only with am adult. That perfunctory smack was not a necessity to saving your life, you just interpret it that way.

I think all forms of physical punishment for corrective purposes are unnecessary in every circumstance, and allowing a defence of "reasonable force" in child abuse cases highlights the danger of keeping even a narrow channel open in this regard. We are brought up with what I consider low-grade child abuse as a normal response to child-like behaviour, but spanking a child is child-like logic in itself. Parents rarely stop to consider the implications of hitting their children. It may appear to work, and many people here have given examples to that, but, really, would a different punishment have sufficed?

I liked this post, it says a lot:

...kids are still developing, so if you hit a kid, he going to remember. Maybe not consciously, but that memory of being hit gets stored anyway, unconsciously, and effects how that child grows, that child's reflexes, ways of thinking, and ultimately who the child will become in adulthood. Hit a kid to discipline, and he'll be ****ed up. Teach a kid discipline through ways in no was associated with violence, and he'll be much more likely to not be ****ed up later in life.

I think we can probably agree with that, so why do we continue to smack?

[Furore]

De-criminalising physical punishment (as that's what it is where I'm from) will provide abusive parents with the excuse of "reasonable force".

Damn I currently love how similar parts of AU and NZ law are...
Why? I have to use 'reasonable force' as a security guard and most of the time it doesn't allow you to do much at all unless you have a very leniant judge or something.

Generally with 'reasonable force' there's a scale. In the case of punishing a child with reasonable force it's much like if you have to stop one as a security guard. You can defend yourself, others and personal property with only the amount of force that is necessary. In a child's case you could likely just restrain them, so if you do leave any marks or something you'll get done for assault. Good law for kid safety, a bit annoying for that vandal who's decided to call you a cocksucker or something when you've asked him to stop smashing up a street sign. If the kid had a gun and you were fearing for your life, then you could legally do more to the kid, but honestly, how many kids get their hands on that kind of hardware? They might get knives or something necessitating more force, but even then it'll only take a little more force to stop them and any more than that little bit more force and once again you're done for assault. This is the kind of thing I have memorised as Security Guards here can lose their license from using anything more than reasonable force and the laws concerning us are the same laws concerning the general population...

I think all forms of physical punishment for corrective purposes are unnecessary in every circumstance, and allowing a defence of "reasonable force" in child abuse cases highlights the danger of keeping even a narrow channel open in this regard. We are brought up with what I consider low-grade child abuse as a normal response to child-like behaviour, but spanking a child is child-like logic in itself. Parents rarely stop to consider the implications of hitting their children. It may appear to work, and many people here have given examples to that, but, really, would a different punishment have sufficed?

I think in general 'pacifistic' ways of punishing kids lead to problems of another kind. They don't accept the lesson so well and sometimes get sneakier to avoid the punishment as it becomes a lesser deterrant rather than scaring the child out of negative behavior. Yeah some kids may get psychologically damaged, but is that really that much worse than becoming an anti-social deviant which is where I see most of the kids not disciplined going? It's never a good idea for any person to see themselves as 'untouchable', especially kids when they don't realise how much their own actions impact the lives of others.

[Alpha]

Yeah some kids may get psychologically damaged, but is that really that much worse than becoming an anti-social deviant which is where I see most of the kids not disciplined going? It's never a good idea for any person to see themselves as 'untouchable', especially kids when they don't realise how much their own actions impact the lives of others.

Just because a child is not smacked, does not mean they have not been disciplined. In fact, IMO, they have been disciplined in a more constructive, humane, and sensible manner.

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

[Furore]

Just because a child is not smacked, does not mean they have not been disciplined. In fact, IMO, they have been disciplined in a more constructive, humane, and sensible manner.

And what's your more constructive, humane, and sensible method of discipline? If you're referring to 'time outs', 'naughty chair' and other such methods I'm deeply skeptical they work well. They became popularised here in the mid to late 90s and the kids whose parents did decide to use such 'pacifistic' means seemed to have a higher percentage of kids who turned out rotten. It in turn has let to teens/young adults getting even more anti-social in their behaviour (they just don't get properly disciplined for doing even the heavy shit) as a percentage and the world's worse for it.

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

Who says smacking teaches kids that violence is alright? I see it as merely a tool to really show the kids that their actions can have negative consequences at a time when they need to start realising that. I certainly didn't learn violence from my parents. I might have hated physical punishment and wished ill upon them at the time, but now I realise it helped make me so much more than some of the punks it's my job to stop. And that's pretty damn sad considering my opinion of myself.

As a side note, I see it as very naive to think you can make every child see the light through the commonly taught pacifistic means. I run into a large diversity of people of different ages/ethnicity/whatever else and it's the kids who weren't disciplined to the point of actually learning their lesson who cause me the most grief. They also tend to be the worst mannered when confronted though only just noticeably.

[Alpha]

And what's your more constructive, humane, and sensible method of discipline? If you're referring to 'time outs', 'naughty chair' and other such methods I'm deeply skeptical they work well. They became popularised here in the mid to late 90s and the kids whose parents did decide to use such 'pacifistic' means seemed to have a higher percentage of kids who turned out rotten. It in turn has let to teens/young adults getting even more anti-social in their behaviour (they just don't get properly disciplined for doing even the heavy shit) as a percentage and the world's worse for it.

Maybe I should be clearer. Leaving the option of parents saying a beating was "reasonable force", child abusers could get away with their crimes. Having child abusers out in the community, with their children, will produce more rotten apples than a pacifistic parent who utilises time outs and naughty chairs. Child abuse is anti-social, and child abusers most likely grew up in an abusive home as well. Using legislation in order to prevent smacking is an effective measure to combat this. Maybe some kids won't get appropriate 'discipline', but more kids will grow up in safe households, that can be assured.

Who says smacking teaches kids that violence is alright? I see it as merely a tool to really show the kids that their actions can have negative consequences at a time when they need to start realising that. I certainly didn't learn violence from my parents. I might have hated physical punishment and wished ill upon them at the time, but now I realise it helped make me so much more than some of the punks it's my job to stop. And that's pretty damn sad considering my opinion of myself.

Do you ever talk to some of the punks you stop? Do they come from abusive backgrounds, or homes where parents used non-violent measures? We learn language, morals (and religion), tastes, and many more things from parents, why not violence?

As a side note, I see it as very naive to think you can make every child see the light through the commonly taught pacifistic means. I run into a large diversity of people of different ages/ethnicity/whatever else and it's the kids who weren't disciplined to the point of actually learning their lesson who cause me the most grief. They also tend to be the worst mannered when confronted though only just noticeably.

Is there a screening process they go through where you ask them if they were smacked? I doubt it, and doubt your figures are correct (though, I acknowledge you know more than I do here). I have heard much to suggest that violent homes breed violent members of the community, and if criminalisation is one step on the road to alleviating this, then I am for it, even if you think I am naive.

[Furore]

Maybe I should be clearer. Leaving the option of parents saying a beating was "reasonable force", child abusers could get away with their crimes. Having child abusers out in the community, with their children, will produce more rotten apples than a pacifistic parent who utilises time outs and naughty chairs. Child abuse is anti-social, and child abusers most likely grew up in an abusive home as well. Using legislation in order to prevent smacking is an effective measure to combat this. Maybe some kids won't get appropriate 'discipline', but more kids will grow up in safe households, that can be assured.

I thought I was clear with the post before the last one. I do know how much weight the term 'reasonable force' carries as it's killed the careers of some of the ex-guards I know. If there's marks and nothing a parent can use to justify them such as a child attacking them with a weapon or something the parent CAN be charged with assault. But read not my last post but the one before for more information.

Do you ever talk to some of the punks you stop? Do they come from abusive backgrounds, or homes where parents used non-violent measures? We learn language, morals (and religion), tastes, and many more things from parents, why not violence?

Even better than talk. I KNOW some of the punks I've had to deal with. If you want me to stereotype as I have to do in some jobs, it's usually white kids from lower middle-class backgrounds, many of which seem to want to emulate shows such as Jackass where Security Guards aren't held in high esteem. Those I know were almost always of the mid to late 90s youngsters where alternative means of punishment were popular. The other half of these kids became the emos who're also quite annoying and in need of a good parental smacking. Wah, mummy didn't buy me the latest phone, wah someone told me I couldn't do something etc. Unluckily for me a lot of the little bastards love to hang around malls doing very little bar complaining, likely as they would get a lot of attention and that seems to be what they're after. Thankfully I don't have to work any stores during opening hours right now. =D

We can learn lots of things from our parents, yes, but that doesn't mean we have to emulate them. I behave nothing like my parents do in most ways. Hell even our diets are completely different despite them raising me. Means I have to buy my own food, but the benefit there is that I can buy whatever I want to eat in my own favourite brand. Epic win. As for violence, I've noticed a tendency for those who did get beaten too severely by their parents to actually react negatively towards violence. Just as some people whose parents were abusive alcoholics seem to despise alcohol.

Is there a screening process they go through where you ask them if they were smacked? I doubt it, and doubt your figures are correct (though, I acknowledge you know more than I do here). I have heard much to suggest that violent homes breed violent members of the community, and if criminalisation is one step on the road to alleviating this, then I am for it, even if you think I am naive.

Profiling's a big part of my game. And we draw data from the observations of all past and present guards working on a particular site recorded in a single logbook. That's how we catch the little bastards who make a habit of repeat offending and it's a damn good technique. Yeah we have to watch some completely innocent people solely because they fit a stereotype, but it gets results. And we rarely miss recording a loss even if we don't catch a shoplifter due to security cameras. It all gets recorded...

[winterborn86]

No way. It's a stupid idea, there is nothing wrong with a child recieving a smack, I had plenty as a child, it's not like your beating the child black and blue is it?

I prefer to use the naughty spot, but sometimes when Maria gets outta control she will get a smack on the bum or a tap on the hand and 9 times outta 10 she will stop being naughty.
Most children associate a smack with having done something naughty, to me, I see it as just a learning method. The child knows they have done something wrong and will eventually learn that if they do it again they will be smacked, so it will discourage the nughty behaviour.
Maria used to lash out and hit us when she had a tantrum but after I started giving her smacks for hitting us, she stopped.
Some people do go over the top with smacks and ends up hurting or marking the child, that to me is unacceptable, but don't see anything with a quick painless smack.

[RagnaToad]

Just because a child is not smacked, does not mean they have not been disciplined. In fact, IMO, they have been disciplined in a more constructive, humane, and sensible manner.

Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth.

I'm not saying that smacking can't have a good effect (note that I voted against criminalising it), but it should be seen as a last resort. And LokentheWolf's example with the Tom & Jerry copying is one of those rare occasions where smacking could be helpful.

Like I said before, if the smacking has become a regular thing it just loses its value and meaning.

Whereas when a kid only receives a smack for the head when its behaviour has been intolerable, life endangering or when all other attempts of making your point are lost on the child, it will comprehend that what he did was not tolerated. Regular smacking just doesn't do any good.

Parents who smack their kids constantly think the smacking will be forgotten by dinner time and all will be well because "one day, you will understand". Well, let me say that it is extremely hard to see a violent expression on your father's face when you've done something wrong your whole childhood and then think about it as them "being concerned about you". It doesn't work that way.

[Govinda]

It really depends on the child. You get kids who'll listen, or can easily be bribed/lied to. Those are the easy ones.

But every now and again you get a boistrous little ****er that will not do as instructed unless you let it know, in the most effective way possible, that you are MUCH ****ING BIGGER and MUCH ****ING STRONGER and that you could seriously **** them up if you felt like it. I know it sounds bad, but I've spent a lot of time around a variety of toddlers. Each will have its own foibles. Some will listen, some won't. You're faced with the choice of having the kid be a little scared, or having it stick its hand into the cool looking sparkly gas fire because it won't listen to you. You need to get them to LISTEN.

I'm not talking beating them with planks; a gentle (by our standards, not theirs) slap on the wrist, a tug on the ear, just anything that'll get them to sit still, understand that you're in charge, and look at you for a second so that they know you're talking important shit.

However, I agree with it being criminal. If you're doing anything to your kid that would lead to the authorities knowing, then ****, you're taking discipline to a different and abhorrent level. But there's nothing wrong with smacking a child as long as you don't let it become a habit. Sometimes, and with some children, it's necessary. Both of you hate it, but it needs done.

[Alpha]

No way. It's a stupid idea, there is nothing wrong with a child recieving a smack, I had plenty as a child, it's not like your beating the child black and blue is it?

Actually, that's exactly what it's like. Removing Section 59 is the only way of removing parental defence for assaulting babies and children.

From Stop violence against children - Repeal Section 59 now | Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

It is 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.

As for violence, I've noticed a tendency for those who did get beaten too severely by their parents to actually react negatively towards violence. Just as some people whose parents were abusive alcoholics seem to despise alcohol.

I have seen and read much to suggest otherwise. Parents who hand out smacks as regular routine are passing on child-rearing messages to their kids. They are saying, through their actions, that children need to see pain in order to learn. When their kids grow up, they will know nothing else, and, as it is legally tolerated, will continue to raise their children as they themselves were raised.

But every now and again you get a boistrous little ****er that will not do as instructed unless you let it know, in the most effective way possible, that you are MUCH ****ING BIGGER and MUCH ****ING STRONGER and that you could seriously **** them up if you felt like it. I know it sounds bad, but I've spent a lot of time around a variety of toddlers.

but still a little

I'm not talking beating them with planks; a gentle (by our standards, not theirs) slap on the wrist, a tug on the ear, just anything that'll get them to sit still, understand that you're in charge, and look at you for a second so that they know you're talking important shit.

However, I agree with it being criminal. If you're doing anything to your kid that would lead to the authorities knowing, then ****, you're taking discipline to a different and abhorrent level. But there's nothing wrong with smacking a child as long as you don't let it become a habit. Sometimes, and with some children, it's necessary. Both of you hate it, but it needs done.

It sounds like you don't agree with it being criminal. Smacking a child, even just once, is currently equated to assault in New Zealand and other countries with similar pieces of legislation. Don't freak out though. Remember police aren't really going to know what goes down in your own home unless you give a kid a black eye. Maybe instead of giving them a slap on the wrist, or tug on the ear, you could just pick them up, look them in the eye, and say very slowly and sternly: "The gas fire is very dangerous. Do not touch it, EVER." That's how kids are taught in schools. Remember learning about crossing the road, or what to do in a house fire? The message was given very clearly, regularly, and constructively. I've never seen a kid run out onto a road because a car looks pretty. Sure, sometimes maybe a kid will walk out onto a road to get their ball or something similar. How would smacking prevent such behaviour? The kid is not thinking about the light smack they once got for this, they're just thinking about their ball that rolled onto the street. I think a better alternative to such education is to reinforce it as much as possible, and it is imperative that it is taught non-violently. If the kid had been told to never play by the road, then this may not have happened at all. Violence is unnecessary.

[LokentheWolf]

Well you know what I got punished for?

Endangering myself or others.
Endangering the life of an animal.
Destroying something valuable, important, or needlessly.

Now, a child who breaks one of these rules in my house will be punished. Not with a belt, not with a spoon, not with exessive force. But a few spankings on the rear. And when that is done, and they've cried it out, then and only then will I talk to them about it. You cant reason with a child who's rebeling or who's upset. They wont hear you. Slapping them will only make it worse.

Let me tell you something, when I was little, I was afraid of my dad. By and large thanks to my mother who was abusing me metally, and using my father as an object of fear. He came home, and would imediately punish me (even after my mother would already have punished me) and she deliberately forgot to tell him that she had, so it was an "unfair" beating. But the thing is, when you get older you come to an understanding as to why you were "beaten".

If your father/mother was a cruel person then yes your going to resent them, and if they beat you unfairly then by all means you shouldnt forgive them until they ask for it. I think that a smacking a kid on/around the crainium is also wrong. When I was living with my aunt, after my parents were both arrested. I'd been living with her over a month, and she was a cruel woman who allowed her daughters to torment me, locked me up in a room for an entire day, without anything to do. After she told me that I was to brush my teeth she (and this was her habbit) murmured that I could play my Nintendo after I was done for an hour. After brushing my teeth, I ran over to her, and made sure because I'd been punished several times before. Instead a simple yes or no, she grabbed me and started shaking violently screaming at me. To this day, I still have type 3 dyslexia that thankfully I've been mainly able to over come.

But see, punishing people for "smacking" their children, and then real abuse are two different things that should be defined. For example, smacking a child on the rear could be placed under and punish parents who dont smack children unfairly and across the cheek with the back of their hand. People like my aunt should be punished for what they do. But people like my father who do it as a corrective messure shouldnt.

[Alpha]

But see, punishing people for "smacking" their children, and then real abuse are two different things that should be defined. For example, smacking a child on the rear could be placed under and punish parents who dont smack children unfairly and across the cheek with the back of their hand. People like my aunt should be punished for what they do. But people like my father who do it as a corrective messure shouldnt.

Although I personally don't support smacking in it's various forms, I can see the argument for it. 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. The police don't live in your home, and these beatings don't sound severe to the point of leaving visible traces (bruises, etc.). Though smacking is illegal in NZ at current, I believe only one person has actually been charged with it, though I suppose it still goes on a lot more regularly than that. What your aunt did, however, would've been much more likely to be labeled as assault, and a conviction ensue.

People like my aunt should be punished for what they do. But people like my father who do it as a corrective messure shouldnt.

Looks like you would've got your wish, then?

[LokentheWolf]

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.

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. This alone can validate that when a child says "Daddy beats me" it's not a lie or a statement of a child whom is trying to get back at daddy for simple correction. And people who are willing to watch out for this kind of behavior.

And someone who is in and out of the hospital over pysical injurys such as broken bones or such should be subject to an investigation. Yes it could turn out that the kid tripped and broke his arm, but it could be something much worse. And that alone should be reason enough.

And besides, remeber the three things I got punished over? I constantly talk to taggers about their tagging. I call them "No better then dogs marking a tree.". And how do you think they reply to me?

"Mang, why chu wastin your time den homes?"

And this all starts with if you dont learn to respect your parents or dont have a parent that you learn to respect, you will never learn to fully respect anything in your life. So many kids now are born without fathers and dont learn that a human life is worth something, that rules are there for not just your safety, but the safety of others.

(A bit of a comic bit here.)

I had a guy in my class, he was one of your tipical cholo's. He and I were plugging an extention cord in, and I noticed there was an exposed bit of the line. I told him to watch out, and not to hold that part of the line while I plugged it in, and that If I had the time I should prolly duct tape over it so that it doesnt fry someone accidently. I held the line and said "This area right here." and he took it from me holding THAT area. I said "Dude, let go of that area, Im going to plug in the line here and you'll get a shock." And he sat there looking at me like a deer caught in the headlights. And he finally registured (or so I thought) not to hold the exposed wires. (I really should have just grabbed some tape with how long it took him to figure it out.) Finally I plug it in, and he shifts his grip again over the exposed wire. He started to scream and luckly I still had my hand on the plug to pull it out, I turn around and he's holding his hand and didnt understand what just happend.

I said "Did you touch this area when it was plugged in?" He said "Yeah." I said "Did you listen to me when I said you'd get shocked if you held this area?" and he replys "I thought you were joking.". ...Joking.

I'm sure if this guy had someone like my father in his life to teach him those three rules, he would have taken me more seriously.

Looks like you would've got your wish, then?

I got my wish. I'm a bit of a beliver in Karma, and now that hag has a case of MS. She used to imprison me in a room, now with her body slowly shutting down she'll be imprisoned in her own body. While I'm not going to gloat over her misfortune I will say that you reap what you sow.