Thread: Sould corporal punishment be outlawed?

Originally Posted by imran_p

a lot of what I see here is due to there being a cultural bias in this thread, in the US and in Britain there seems to be an idea that even lightly smacking a child as a form of discipline is child abuse; in Europe however, in a number of places, it's considered the norm.

What? Completely the opposite. Have you read my post on second page? Corporal punishment is prohibited in 19 European countries, which doesn't include Britain... And from what I see, it's legal in US as well.

In asnwer to your question no I haven't read your post on the second page, maybe I'm wrong. I was basing that on expereince. I've spent quite a bit of time in Western Europe; France, Spain, Portugal, and its not uncommon to see parents smacking children publically, something I don't think I've ever seen living in the UK. I haven't been to Europe in some time so maybe its changed.

Perception is a tricky bastard sometimes. I'm not an expert on this though, just saw that information on the COE pages. Maybe things simply changed as you said.

Too long to read right now, and too little time to get into a long winded post.

But I'll just say this for now...

As a child, up til about age 15, when I began to be able to fend for myself, I, as well as my brothers and my mother, was physically abused by my father.

He would beat us with whatever was available, from a closed fist to a boat oar to a 2x4.

I remember one day after being "bad" he laid me on my bed and spanked me on the bare with a leather belt.
It initially started out as 50 spanks, but any time I moved he would start the count over. I think the total came to about 250 spankings in the course of two hours.

Regardless of this, however, I still think that corporal punishment, when used properly and not abused, can be an effective tool for teaching children.

Obviously I'm not for extreme force, but a couple whacks on the ass to keep a kid in line is NOT going to hurt them physically and I'm all for it.
No objects will be used in my house, just an open hand.
It's a pride thing, not a physical dominance thing.

Kids are not in charge, and when soft hippie parents ask their kid to behave instead of making them behave they're basically saying "You run my life, do as you wish".

You CAN control your children without striking them. Witholding privleges is a potent educator.

I have mixed feelings leaning toward yes it should be outlawed. When a person has been sent to jail awaiting trial or even convicted of a crime they should not have to worry about being assaulted or a target of violence. That is not part of his or her punishment.
If the death penalty (lethal injection/ maybe electric chair) is being considered corporal punishment, I am for that.

Originally Posted by Bizarre Jester

If the death penalty (lethal injection/ maybe electric chair) is being considered corporal punishment, I am for that.

Does your way of thinking include Viking helmets and pillaging?

This thread was listed as a "similar thread" under my recent "Gangsta Rap" thread.

Children should NEVER be spanked, so for this kind of punishment I strongly vote NO. There are better ways to discipline them, but it should be done early on! I am a mother, and I have never hit my children -- not once.

For the death penalty I vote YES. Death to murderers, rapists, and child molesters (among others).

No mercy there.

If I ran a prison, I know what I would do. I'd tie some murderers up against a wall, and have the victim's families use some guns as target practice on them.

Originally Posted by Carera

This thread was listed as a "similar thread" under my recent "Gangsta Rap" thread.

Children should NEVER be spanked, so for this kind of punishment I strongly vote NO. There are better ways to discipline them, but it should be done early on! I am a mother, and I have never hit my children -- not once.

For the death penalty I vote YES. Death to murderers, rapists, and child molesters (among others).

No mercy there.

If I ran a prison, I know what I would do. I'd tie some murderers up against a wall, and have the victim's families use some guns as target practice on them.

Yeah, killing them sure will teach them not to do that again.

I don't believe there is a universal answer to this question, just as there is no universal standard of morality.
The question stands: What do you do if no other punishment works?
But what if "spanking" doesn't work? What do you turn to then?
I was paddled in school. A big, long, aerodynamic paddle named "Thunder". We had a few encounters. I still haven't killed anyone. I don't even spank my dog.
Not only that, but teachers have become completely powerless to control students. I have worked in several schools in my life. I was actually told that if there was a fist fight, that I should just let the kids kill one another, because touching them in any way to stop the fight could lead to prosecution. In one week at a California high school, in a rough neighborhood, I watched the teacher "teach" the students roman numerals, one through ten. During this time there was a lot of screaming, paperwad wars, and two fist fights. The teacher couldn't do anything about it, and neither could the principal.
We need to give the teachers SOME sort of power BACK.

Having said that, when I was in highschool I was given a choice, several times, between having in-school suspension for three days, or having three swats with the paddle. I always chose the swats. They were quick and pain..ful. It sure beat sitting at school over the weekend. It appears that there are worse punishments than paddling.
If this is true, is spanking such a bad thing? If this is true, why isn't in-school suspension considered inhumane?
On the THIRD hand (?), why should we even bother spanking a child if in-school suspension is a less desireable punishment? It seems that spanking is not only morally questionable, but inefficient.

Suspension is a TERRIBLE idea, no matter what. I believe it ONLY hurts those students who CARE about school. I got suspended for a few days. I got sooo high.

I didn't read everything you wrote sloth...but my I had my fair share of the paddle in elementary school, and my moms tore me up a couple of times. Guess what.....I've only gotten in two fights in my adult life, and I don't have a criminal record. Let's face it....there are some kids that need to be talked to....and some kids that just need a good old fashion butt whooping.

You'd be surprised. I've seen kids throw tantrums and their punishment was a spanking, which did fuck all. I've seen parents grow a pair, take their kid aside, and explain life to them calmly and sternly, and the kid never does it again. I was always in the second group. As Sloth said, a paddling is quick, but it doesn't stick. Quite a few kids are even confused as to why they're being spanked in the first place. They don't have a built-in knowledge of social behavior, and few parents who dish out spankings explain things well. If they do, that spanking isn't even necessary. It's a ridiculous option that harkens back to the dark ages. Only the weak parents who have no clue how to handle their children resort to spanking.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You'd be surprised. I've seen kids throw tantrums and their punishment was a spanking, which did fuck all. I've seen parents grow a pair, take their kid aside, and explain life to them calmly and sternly, and the kid never does it again. I was always in the second group. As Sloth said, a paddling is quick, but it doesn't stick. Quite a few kids are even confused as to why they're being spanked in the first place. They don't have a built-in knowledge of social behavior, and few parents who dish out spankings explain things well. If they do, that spanking isn't even necessary. It's a ridiculous option that harkens back to the dark ages. Only the weak parents who have no clue how to handle their children resort to spanking.

I totally agree.

As far as murderers and child molesters are concerned, it is an entirely different story. Like I said: tie them up in prison, bring the victim's families, and let them practice shooting!

Broadcast it also on TV, so I can watch. No headshots allowed. Drag it out, the longer the better!

After reading the two responses to my post, I think I can safely say that while I don't believe that spanking is inhumane, I do believe it's inefficient. You guys reminded me that the PERFECT parent would be able to sway their child's judgement in a positive way, using logic, reason, assertiveness, and love.
THIS IS the DEFINITION OF DOMINANCE, to me.
True, pure, calm, non-controlling, non-belittling dominance.
The moment that anger is shown, dominance is lost. The moment that physical force is used, dominance is lost. The moment that weakness, superiority, or disgrace is involved, dominance is lost.
The true leader does not ever have a chance to get angry, because he has never failed to convey the sentiment, to his follower, that would cause them to choose the right path.

I am against corporal punishment, because it is unneeded.
If it is true that a child can be molded in all cases, then it is almost assuredly by reason and example that this is done.
If it is true that a child canNOT be molded in all cases, and there are some children that are just "bad", then I do not believe that physical punishment would be a deciding factor here, but rather an act of desperation, anger, or a feeling of superiority, that would be fruitless.

There is nothing wrong with Corporal Punishment. The methods that are used in schools today are simply ineffective. I see in action most everyday in school. I kid does something that disrupts the class. All the teacher can do is say "Don't so that I'll send you to the office/detention/ALC/something-or-another." As for the ALC, there are a few kids I knew that wanted to fake a fight so that they could get into ALC because they found it better than regular class. All those kids would think twice if that got a good old fashioned spanking.

As for the people who say it makes people violent and become murderers, there's very little base to that argument. The people who grew up with corporal punishment are likely your Parents or Grandparents, and I have yet to see anything along the lines of "Old man goes are killing spree" on the news. If your going to become a murderer, there's no changing that, it's for something other than a little spanking you got from the teacher when you were ten.

Originally Posted by NikolaTesla

There is nothing wrong with Corporal Punishment. The methods that are used in schools today are simply ineffective. I see in action most everyday in school. I kid does something that disrupts the class. All the teacher can do is say "Don't so that I'll send you to the office/detention/ALC/something-or-another." As for the ALC, there are a few kids I knew that wanted to fake a fight so that they could get into ALC because they found it better than regular class. All those kids would think twice if that got a good old fashioned spanking.

As for the people who say it makes people violent and become murderers, there's very little base to that argument. The people who grew up with corporal punishment are likely your Parents or Grandparents, and I have yet to see anything along the lines of "Old man goes are killing spree" on the news. If your going to become a murderer, there's no changing that, it's for something other than a little spanking you got from the teacher when you were ten.

It's still unnecessary. Proper upbringing will always be better than corporeal punishment. Most of northern Europe is a shining example of this.

Originally Posted by NikolaTesla

There is nothing wrong with Corporal Punishment. The methods that are used in schools today are simply ineffective. I see in action most everyday in school. I kid does something that disrupts the class. All the teacher can do is say "Don't so that I'll send you to the office/detention/ALC/something-or-another." As for the ALC, there are a few kids I knew that wanted to fake a fight so that they could get into ALC because they found it better than regular class. All those kids would think twice if that got a good old fashioned spanking.

As for the people who say it makes people violent and become murderers, there's very little base to that argument. The people who grew up with corporal punishment are likely your Parents or Grandparents, and I have yet to see anything along the lines of "Old man goes are killing spree" on the news. If your going to become a murderer, there's no changing that, it's for something other than a little spanking you got from the teacher when you were ten.

The reason why this sort of thing happens in school is that you have 20 kids and 1 teacher. That's just fucking stupid, sorry there's really no other way to put it. There's little direct interaction for most students, no actual connection.

People who are raised in an environment where violence and the use of force are tolerated, (which if you are hitting a child you are being violent, therefore violence is tolerated) are clearly more likely to be violent than people who are raised in an environment where violence is not tolerated and reason is used to show why an act is wrong. There are plenty of other ways to punish a child more that are effective and humane than beatings.

You may not hear "old man goes on a killing spree" but that's because they're old. Old people are too tired to do anything like that. But back in the day, I'm sure plenty of these people were violent, and they probably didn't even get caught. They just beat their wife and kids, because this is the kind of violence that is primarily perpetuated by this kind of action. But some of these people probably became violent criminals in their time as well.

Spanking may not be the cause of a murder, but it is one more example of tolerating violence. People who tolerate violence are the ones who use violence.

I was "spanked" every day by my mother until I was about 14 and could physically over-power her. It didn't do shit except make me angry at her and inspire me to find better, smarter ways of doing the "bad" things that I wanted to do. Spanking does nothing except instill fear and anger in your child. It does not build a safe, loving relationship, which is what every parent should strive for with their child.

I have a very strong-willed 20 month old, and I have never spanked her. She does not walk all over me or get away with things. I also live with my nephew, who is possibly the most challenging kid I've ever come across. I've never spanked him, but he respects me and knows there will be consequences if he does certain things. Taking away his gameboy is a far more effective punishment than a smack on the ass ever will be.

Mr. Dubois, didn't they have
police? Or courts?


DUBOIS
They had many more police than we
have. And more courts. All
overworked.


RICO
I guess I don't get it . . . Well
if a boy in our city had done
anything half that bad . . . well
he and his father would have been
flogged side by side. But such
things just don't happen.


DUBOIS
Define a "juvenile delinquent".


RICO
Uh, one of those kids---the ones
who used to beat up people.


DUBOIS
Wrong.


RICO
Huh? But the book said---


DUBOIS
My apologies. Your textbook does
so state. But calling a tail a leg
does not make the name fit.
"Juvenile delinquent" is a
contradiction in terms, one which
gives a clue to their problem and
their failure to solve it. Have
you ever raised a puppy?


RICO
Yes, sir.


DUBOIS
Did you housebreak him?


RICO
Err . . . yes, sir. Eventually.


DUBOIS
Ah, yes. When your puppy made
mistakes, were you angry?


RICO
What? Why, he didn't know better;
he's just a puppy.


DUBOIS
What did you do?


RICO
Why, I scolded him and rubbed his
nose in it.


DUBOIS
Surely he could not understand your
words?


RICO
No, but he could tell I was sore at
him!


DUBOIS
But you just said you were not
angry.


RICO
No, but I had to make him Think I
was. He had to learn didn't he?


DUBOIS
Conceded. But you said that the
poor beastie didn't know that he
was doing wrong, that he did not
understand you. Justify yourself!
Or are you a sadist?


RICO
Mr. Dubois, you Have to! You scold
him so that he knows he's in
trouble, you rub his nose in it so
that he will know what trouble you
mean, so that he darn well won't do
it again---and you have to do it
right away! It doesn't do a bit of
good to punish him later; you'll
just confuse him. Even so, he
won't learn from one lesson, so you
watch and catch him at it again and
pretty soon he learns. But it's a
waste of breath just to scold him.

I guess you've never raised pups.


DUBOIS
Many. I'm raising a dachshund
right now---by your methods. Let's
get back to those juvenile
criminals. The most vicious
averaged somewhat younger than you
here in this class . . . and they
often started their lawless careers
much younger. Let us never forget
that puppy. These children were
often caught; police arrested
batches each day. Were they
scolded? Yes, often scathingly.
Were their noses rubbed in it?
Rarely. News organs and officials
usually kept their names secret---
in many places the law so required
for criminals under eighteen. Were
they flogged? Indeed not!

Flogging was lawful as sentence of
court only in one small province,
Delaware, and there for only a few
crimes, and rarely invoked; it was
regarded as "cruel and unusual
punishment.'


Dubois pauses.

DUBOIS
(Cont.)
I do not understand objections to
"cruel and unusual" punishment.
While a judge should be benevolent
in purpose, his awards should cause
the criminal to suffer, else there
is no punishment---and pain is the
basic mechanism built into us by
millions of years of evolution
which safeguards us by warning when
something threatens our survival.
Why should society refuse to use
such a highly perfected survival
mechanism? However, that period
was loaded with pre-scientific
pseudo-psychological nonsense.
As for "unusual', punishment Must
be unusual or it serves no purpose.


Dubois points his stump at a BOY.

DUBOIS
(Cont.)
What would happen if a puppy were
spanked every hour?


BOY
Uh . . . probably drive him crazy!


DUBOIS
Probably. It certainly will not
teach him anything. How long has
it been since the principle of this
school last had to switch a pupil?


BOY
Uh, I'm not sure About two years.
The kid that swiped---


DUBOIS
Never mind. Long enough. It means
that such punishment is so unusual
as to be significant, to deter, to
instruct. Back to these young
criminals---they certainly were not
flogged for their crimes. The
usual sequence was; for the first
offence, a warning---a scolding,
often without trial. After several
offences, a sentence of
confinement, but with the youngster
placed on probation. A boy might
be arrested many times and
convicted several times before he
was punished---and then it would
merely be confinement, with others
like him from whom he learned still
more criminal habits. If he kept
out of major trouble while
confined, he could usually evade
most of even that mild punishment,
be given probation---"paroled" in
the jargon of the times.
This incredible sequence could go
on for years while his crimes
increased in frequency and
viciousness, with no punishment
whatever save rare dull-but-
comfortable confinements. Then
suddenly, usually by law on his
eighteenth birthday, this so called
"juvenile delinquent" becomes an
adult criminal---and sometimes
would up in only weeks or months in
a death cell awaiting execution for
murder.


Dubois points at Rico.

DUBOIS
(Cont.)
You---Suppose you merely scolded
your puppy, never punished him, let
him go on making messes in the
house . . . and occasionally locked
him up on an outbuilding but soon
let him back into the house with a
warning not to do it again. Then
one day you notice that he is now a
grown dog and Still not
housebroken---whereupon you whip
out a gun and shoot him dead.
Comment, please?


RICO
Why . . . that's the craziest way
to raise a dog I ever heard of!


DUBOIS
I agree. Or a child. Whose fault
would it be?


RICO
Uh . . . why, mine, I guess.


DUBOIS
Again, I agree. But I'm not
guessing.


A GIRL blurts out a question
GIRL
Mr. Dubois, but why? Why didn't
they flog any of the kids who
deserved it---the sort of lesson
they wouldn't forget! I mean ones
who did things Really bad. Why
not?


DUBOIS
I don't know. Except that the
time-tested method of instilling
social virtue and respect for law
in the minds of the young did not
appeal to a pre-scientific pseudo-
professional class who called
themselves "social workers" or
sometimes "child psychologists".
It was too simple for them,
apparently, since anybody could do
it, using only the patience and
firmness needed in training a
puppy. I have sometimes wondered
if they cherished a vested interest
in disorder---but that is highly
unlikely; adults must always act
from conscious "highest motives" no
matter what their behavior.


GIRL
But---Good heavens! I don't ever
expect to be hauled up in front of
a judge and sentenced to a
flogging; you behave yourself and
things don't happen. I don't see
what's wrong with our system; it's
a lot better than not being able to
walk outdoors for fear of your
life---why, that's Horrible!


DUBOIS
I agree. Young lady, the tragic
wrongness of what those well-
meaning people did, contrasted with
what they Thought they were doing,
goes very deep. They had no
scientific theory of morals. They
did have a theory of morals and
they tried to live by it (I should
not have sneered at their motives),
but their theory was wrong---half
of it fuzzy headed wishful
thinking, half of it rationalized
charlatanry. The more earnest they
were, the further it led them
astray. You see, the assumed that
Man has a moral instinct.


GIRL
Sir? I thought---But he does! *I*
have.


DUBOIS
No, my dear, you have a cultivated
conscience, a most carefully
trained one. Man has No Moral
Instinct. He is not born with a
moral sense. You were not born
with it, I was not---and a puppy
has none. We Acquire moral sense,
when we do, through training,
experience, and hard sweat of the
mind. These unfortunate juvenile
criminals were born with none, even
as you and I, and they had no
chance to acquire any; their
experiences did not permit it.
What is "moral sense'? It is an
elaboration of the instinct to
survive. The instinct to survive
is human nature itself, and every
aspect of our personalities derives
from it. Anything that conflicts
with the survival instinct acts
sooner or later to eliminate the
individual and thereby fails to
show up in future generations.
This truth is mathematically
demonstrable, everywhere
verifiable, it is the single
eternal imperative controlling
everything we do.

But the instinct to survive can be
cultivated into motivations more
subtle and much more complex than
the blind, brute urge of the
individual to stay alive. Young
lady, what you miscalled your
"moral instinct" was the instiling
in you by your elders of he truth
that survival can have more
imperatives than that of your own
personal survival. Survival of you
family, for example. Of your
children, when you have them. Of
your nation, if you struggle that
high up the scale. And so on up.
A scientifically verifiable theory
of morals must be rooted in the
individual's instinct to survive---
And Nowhere Else!---and must
correctly describe the hierarchy of
survival, note the motivations at
each level, and resolve all
conflicts.

We have such a theory now; we can
solve any moral problem, on any
level. Self-interest, love of
family, duty to country,
responsibility toward the human
race---we are even developing an
exact ethic for extra-human
relations. But all moral problems
can be illustrated by just one
misquotation: "Grater love hath no
man than a mother cat dying to
defend her kittens." Once you
understand the problem facing that
cat and how she solved it, you will
then be ready to examine yourself
and learn how high up the moral
ladder you are capable of climbing.

These juvenile criminals hit a low
level. Born with only the instinct
for survival, the highest morality
they achieved was a shaky loyalty
to a peer group, a street gang.
But the do-gooders attempted to
"appeal to their better natures',
to "reach them', to "spark their
moral sense." Tosh!! they Had no
"better natures'; experience taught
them that what they were doing was
the way to survive. The puppy
never got his punishment, therefore
what he did with pleasure and
success must be "moral".

The basis of all morality is duty,
a concept with the same relation to
a group that self interest has to
individual. Nobody preached duty
to these kids in a way that they
could understand---that is, with
punishment, with flogging if need
be. But the society they were in
told them endlessly about their
"rights".

The results should have been
predictable, since a human being
has No Natural Rights Of Any
Nature."


The boy from before takes the bait

BOY
Sir? how about "life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness?"


DUBOIS
Ah, yes, the "unalienable rights".
Each year someone quotes that
magnificent poetry. Life? What
"right" to life has a man who is
drowning in the Pacific? The ocean
will not harken to his cries. What
"right" to life has a man who must
die if he is to save his children?
If he chooses to save his own life,
does he do so as a matter of
"right"? If two men are starving
and cannibalism is the only
alternative to death, which man's
right is "unalienable"? And is it
"right"? As to liberty, the heroes
who signed the great document
pledged themselves to Buy liberty
with their lives. Liberty is Never
unalienable; it must be redeemed
regularly with the blood of
patriots or it Always vanishes. Of
all the so called natural human
rights that have ever been
invented, liberty is least likely
to be cheap and is Never free of
cost.

The third "right"?---the "pursuit
of happiness"? It is indeed
unalienable but it is not a right;
it is simply a universal condition
which tyrants cannot take away nor
patriots restore. Cast me into a
dungeon, burn me at the stake,
crown me king of kings, I can
"pursue happiness" as long as my
brain lives---but neither gods nor
saints, wise men nor subtle drugs,
can insure that I will catch it.


Dubois then turns to Rico.

DUBOIS
(Cont.)
I told you that "juvenile
delinquent" is a contradiction in
terms. "Delinquent" means "failing
in duty". But Duty is an Adult
virtue---indeed a juvenile becomes
an adult when, and only when, he
acquires a knowledge of duty and
embraces it as dearer than the
self-love he was born with.



EXT. CAMP---NIGHT


Guards are making patrols.

DUBOIS
(Cont., V.O.)
There never was, there cannot be, a
"juvenile delinquent". But for
every juvenile criminal there are
always one or two more adult
delinquents---people of mature
years who either do not know their
duty, or who, knowing it, fail.

From Robert A Heinlein's Starship Troopers. I did not write that, but I do believe it.

tl;dr

Originally Posted by Carera

For the death penalty I vote YES. Death to murderers, rapists, and child molesters (among others).

No mercy there.

If I ran a prison, I know what I would do. I'd tie some murderers up against a wall, and have the victim's families use some guns as target practice on them.

I think I remember a Gandhi quote about this... "An eye for an eye is the best possible form of punishment?" No. That's not it. Prison is SUPPOSED to be about rehabilitation, isn't it?