Should it be criminal to smack children?

[Alpha]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.