Child Discipline (How Parents Punish a Child)

[M.K]

In my first Proving Grounds topic, I'd like to bring up the issue of Child Discipline, specifically concerning whether or not you feel it is appropriate to inflict physical punishment as discipline, however, if you feel like discussing other methods of discipline as compared to physical discipline, you are free to do so.

I am going to be honest, my parents did hit me if I was misbehaving. It was never enough to give me a black eye, but rather a "Reality Check" hit on the back or arm. My puerile mind always thought this was cruel and unusual, but when I look back, I realize that it made me behave more properly today, as a 15 year old. Therefore, in this sense, I am FOR the physical discipline of children, but not to the point of inflicting severe damage to the body/mind/soul of the child.

Here are some questions to consider when writing your response:

• How does physical discipline affect the mindset of a child?
• What other forms of discipline do you feel are more appropriate than others?
• How does a child act when they grow up with too much/little/zero discipline from the parents?

 

[:mad:]

I like this, a serious topic, and it's original.

Well, I've always felt that children aren't even disciplined. At least, not any more. If an adult touches someone's child, they can sue. Parents used to be able to smack their children every once in awhile, only to teach them a lesson. Now, I think the law went too far. It's not exactly a bad method, children behave badly, it's a part of youth. They'll continue to whine, and beg, and get in trouble until they learn. Spanking was a popular method a few years ago, now it's considered cruel. My feelings on physical abuse are kind of iffy, I'd have to lean more toward "it's okay in moderation if the child doesn't listen.".

Children could become angry, bitter teenagers if they were badly hit. They might toughen up, and become those large bullies you see on TV, only more dangerous because this is reality.

Other forms of discipline could be some form of unusual punishment. A parent could always ignore the child completely, and later tell them "I'm sorry, I only pay attention to children that behave."
Something along those lines could suffice as an alternate to hitting. Timeouts were effective those many years ago.

Children that aren't disciplined sometimes assume the world owes them something, and become irritible, angry, unhappy teenagers. I usually avoid people like this, whether I'm at work, school, or any parties. They're usually the first ones to argue over something stupid.

 

[.Marik]

This is a wonderful topic to debate about.

I have recently moved to a new foster home, and the children there misbehave like no tommorow. They scream, spit, kick, and throw temper-tantrums over foolishness.

A slap on the wrist, would be appropriate at a time like this.

The law basically prevents all children from getting physically abused, unless it's god**** UMAB bull****. Never mind that.

If parents would do this more often, I'm sure it would reinforce better behaviour from their offspring. However, downright beating a child is morally and politically wrong and incorrect. Some parents, thinking since it's "their own blood", resort to cruel and unusual punishment methods, such as starvation, beatings, forced confinement, etc...etc...

Although that's more along the lines of abuse, then disipline. But some parents don't understand when to draw the line, so the goverment has to make sure it doesn't happen to the point where a child is emotionally scarred.

Children make mistakes. They need to learn from them, but only in a positive, productive manner.

 

[RDK]

Spoiler

Playing extreme Devil's Advocate here...

Is the use of physical violence ever okay under circumstances where your life isn't in danger? I don't see how hitting a kid will do anything but emotionally, and physically, scar him. There are ways to deal with children other than hitting them.

I hope to god none of you have dogs or cats that you go around kicking every time they take a **** on the carpet.

 

[ArcPoint]

Pain is the best teacher. I agree that people getting a solid smack on the butt is a valid form of punishment. It teaches kids if they do bad behavior X, they get punishment Y. No ordinary human wishes to put himself in a painful situation.

Punishing kids using pain will teach them that certain behaviors are not to be done. Kids don't want to put themselves in painful situations, so, they tend not to do that behavior. It will not emotionally scar them unless the punishment is overly-severe for the act, or there is no reason behind it. It merely forces them to learn that doing X while yield Y. Don't do X, and I won't receive Y.

And yes, a solid slap on the head for a dog is good enough to teach the dog not to export waste material in the house, doesn't mean you need to break a rib, or choke them, or exert something overly severe, but enough so that it inflicts pain.

I agree that this punishment shouldn't be overly cruel, leaving scars, piercing the skin, making a black eye, forcing them unconscious or whatever. A simple slap on the wrist, or a belt to the behind is enough to teach them not to do a certain action. Misbehaved children should be punished, not abused.

 

[Wrath`]

I think pysical punishment should be kept to a minimum, Yes a good solid (but light) slap is good when a young kid is doing or being realy bad or selfish.

The best form of punishment is taking away privilages, it tought me well, and I read more books scince I'd lose video game time, ect. So its a win win, kid gets taught not to do action X, and then gets in to good hobby Y wich leads good life Z.

I hate how my dad disiplines my half sisters, swearing and yelling is just ineffective in my opinion.

 

[ArcPoint]

Yelling is ineffective, I agree with that, people often say things they don't mean when they're mad to the point of yelling. However a good solid belt to the behind taught me how to behave.

Taking away privileges is something that I think also works, a possible alternative to hitting. But this can only really apply to older youth, like 16 year old's privilege to a license. When they're 8 years old they don't have many privileges, so what could you take away?

 

[Wrath`]

Yelling is ineffective, I agree with that, people often say things they don't mean when they're mad to the point of yelling. However a good solid belt to the behind taught me how to behave.

Taking away privileges is something that I think also works, a possible alternative to hitting. But this can only really apply to older youth, like 16 year old's privilege to a license. When they're 8 years old they don't have many privileges, so what could you take away?

I had vedio games when I was 8, But other things could be, TV time, desserts and other smaller but yet still effective things.

Also keep the punishment alive, if you get item X removed for 1 week, but do another bad thing during the week, item X now gets removed for a week and a half and so on, untill they learn.

 

[M.K]

Spoiler

Playing extreme Devil's Advocate here...

Is the use of physical violence ever okay under circumstances where your life isn't in danger? I don't see how hitting a kid will do anything but emotionally, and physically, scar him. There are ways to deal with children other than hitting them.

I hope to god none of you have dogs or cats that you go around kicking every time they take a **** on the carpet.

I have a scar on my hand one time from when I went to harvest oysters. I tripped and sliced my palm on a shell.
I don't ever want to harvest oysters ever again, but has it negatively impacted my life? Nope.

The "scar" we inflicted on a child is not some huge deal. We have inflicted a scar that says "Do not act this way/do these things or you will be hurt". The "hurt" part is not serious, it is more a nuisance than an injury.

At a small age, children don't comprehend verbal punishment all that well. You can steer them into feeling bad or admitting guilt, but they do not interpret it as something to avoid in the future.
Physical punishment, however, is something that 100% does not feel good, and reminds the child that this is an action TO DEFINETLY avoid. (unless the child has developed some sort of pain fetish >__>)

Your pet argument is flawed. I do not kick my cat when she misbehaves (you seem to think that physical discipline involves a serious injury), but I DO make her go outside in the rain/snow. This sends a message that "In this house, you must behave to stay in the warmth/comfort. If not, you are going outside where it is much less comfortable".

 

[RDK]

I have a scar on my hand one time from when I went to harvest oysters. I tripped and sliced my palm on a shell.
I don't ever want to harvest oysters ever again, but has it negatively impacted my life? Nope.

This has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand. We're talking about making a conscious decision to physically harm a child for no other reason than the parent thinks it's doing something wrong.

What if the parents are just @ssholes? I've seen plenty of parents disciplining their children for stuff they shouldn't even have been disciplined for. I'd rather have kids grow up to be brats because they weren't punished enough than getting knocked around by some abusive step-dad every day.

The "scar" we inflicted on a child is not some huge deal. We have inflicted a scar that says "Do not act this way/do these things or you will be hurt". The "hurt" part is not serious, it is more a nuisance than an injury.

You're talking like you represent every child in the world, ever. I'm pretty sure you don't have a free pass into the psychology of all children.

Children are impressionable, especially at the more tender ages. If parents go around wantonly striking their children for things they probably even shouldn't have been punished for, they're going to remember it. Many children who are victims of abuse grow up hating their parents and wanting to kill them later in life.

Worst-case scenario, that's how they're going to treat other people around them.

At a small age, children don't comprehend verbal punishment all that well. You can steer them into feeling bad or admitting guilt, but they do not interpret it as something to avoid in the future.

Sure they do. I'm assuming you don't have kids?

Physical punishment, however, is something that 100% does not feel good, and reminds the child that this is an action TO DEFINETLY avoid. (unless the child has developed some sort of pain fetish >__>)

I was going to say something along the lines of "What if the child is sexually aroused by it?" but you kind of beat me to the punch there. Get your mind out of the gutter.

Your pet argument is flawed. I do not kick my cat when she misbehaves (you seem to think that physical discipline involves a serious injury), but I DO make her go outside in the rain/snow. This sends a message that "In this house, you must behave to stay in the warmth/comfort. If not, you are going outside where it is much less comfortable".

I never said physical discipline implies serious injury; the point I'm trying to make is that the kind of things people slap their kids and pets for don't warrant physical discipline at all. Why inflict unnecessary pain when there's an alternative that doesn't involve harming your child / pet?

In any case, this is all beside the point. What I'm trying to get you guys to realize is that even though the parents' job is to look out for their children's welfare, which ultimately involves a value judgment when it comes to what is permissible and what is not permissible, it should almost never come down to physical discipline except in extreme cases. Smacking your dog on the head for ****ting on the carpet is not endangering anyone's life, and does not warrant physical discipline.

That's like saying the government is allowed to physically discipline citizens for any subjective fancy or whim it may happen to have on a certain issue. Thankfully, we have the Constitution that outlines basic human rights. Parents are allowed to make value judgments on what is permissible in their homes; sometimes their judgments are bull****, and the kids end up suffering for it.

TL ; DR: as a parent, I can legally discipline my kid in whatever fashion I want to, even though my reason may not be valid or sound. Just because you are a parent that does not give you free reign to infringe upon the basic liberty of another human being.

 

[M.K]

This topic isn't about the child abusers who beat down upon their children for no reason at all, because we can all agree that that is wrong.
I'm trying to run a discussion where (situationally) the child is poorly misbehaving and the parent has a legitamate reason to discipline their child. Would a verbal punishment be enough, or does the child need a stern slap on the wrist?

Also, I'm 16 years old, I don't have kids. However, I have been on the receiving end of this situation, and I feel it has made me a better, more mature person at my age.

I was going to say something along the lines of "What if the child is sexually aroused by it?" but you kind of beat me to the punch there. Get your mind out of the gutter.

Oh...uhm...well....*runs away*

 

[handsockpuppet]

I am completely against physical punishment (or most punishments for that matter). Take Alfie Kohn, who published books such as Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason, BEYOND DISCIPLINE:From Compliance to Community, and PUNISHED BY REWARDS:The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes (http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.html#null). it pretty much states that while occasionally punishments will control your child for the moment, it has too much of a negative long-term effect. Even rewards can lead to negative long-term consequences, as the child is not really focused on what it is he/she is doing (this was all paraphrased and slightly changed).

Moving on, there's a difference between slipping and falling and hurting yourself then your parents doing it. How can a child go to his/her parents and tell them they did something bad when they know their parent might beat them? 9/10 times the children feel bad about it already, and beating them is like whipping a dead horse, except they still feel it. It won't teach them anything, but they still feel it. While this isn't about child abuse, even something as small as lightly slapping your child when they did something wrong or are acting "bad" can become a cycle passing from one generation to the next. I personally believe now's the time to end that cycle. There are more effective ways of teaching and discipline. Yelling is better, but still bad. What people don't understand is that most kids do understand what their parents are saying, but are pulled by other sources such as boredom, grumpiness (children are supposed to get a lot of sleep), hormones (especially in later teenagers), and natural rebellion against parents, especially those who deal punishments.

This is my bottom line: punishment, especially physical, is not effective, and has negative long-term effects. It stirs bad relations between children and parents and if not stopped, it will continue.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I think it's OK for parents to hit their kids in moderation. If they aren't hit, they'll be too soft later on imo. Like someone said (I think it was Arc) pain is the best teacher. Kids aren't going to want to get hit, so if they learn not to do something, because if they do they'll get spanked, then they'll most likely stop doing it.

Yelling on the other hand is kind of pointless. If you yell at a kid it will most likely make them cry more, or do whatever you want them to stop doing. I always think it's stupid when I see parents telling their toddlers to shut up, because most of the time it makes them make more noise, because me telling my kid to shut up, yelling it at them, isn't really going to teach them. Getting hit hurts. Getting yelled at is obnoxious, but it doesn't really hurt.

But hitting a kid repeatedly and every time they do something unsatisfactory is taking things too far, so it's important for the parent to not overdo it, because it may scar the kid and also scar them later in life, which isn't what a parent is trying to accomplish if they do hit their child. Also, it may make the kid think that it's OK that people are hitting them later in life, and not think anything of it because that's what they're used to, which is also a bad result of this.



All in all, it can be helpful to teach kids what behaviors are okay and not okay from a young age, but overdoing it can be harmful to the kid later in life.

 

[Maniclysane]

Hitting a child, woman, man or any being should not be tolerated. Once you hit another being, you are no longer a human; you're an animal. If mankind as a whole want's anything done, violence is self suicide.

You hit your kid as punishment. You did not like what your kid did, so you hit them.

Your kid doesn't like what someone at his school did. He hits them.

Any kind of peace starts with social peace. Hitting is no exception.

 

[mikybee93]

Since most people in this topic are taking the side of 'physical punishment is fine in moderation', I'll try and play the devils advocate, even though I agree with the previous statement.

As Maniclysane said, when you hit your kid, it makes it seem okay to hit people when you're mad. Most, not all, of the time parents resort to physical punishment when they are angry at their child for doing something wrong, however I believe that hitting is also a way to get the emotions of the parents out, sort of like 'revenge'.

But, if you explain to your kid that the only reason you are hitting them is because they did something wrong, would this fix the problem? I think not, kids being kids will still think that you're only hitting them because you're angry.

I must say, this is a very interesting topic, thank you Meta-Kirby.

 

[handsockpuppet]

I think it's OK for parents to hit their kids in moderation. If they aren't hit, they'll be too soft later on imo. Like someone said (I think it was Arc) pain is the best teacher. Kids aren't going to want to get hit, so if they learn not to do something, because if they do they'll get spanked, then they'll most likely stop doing it.

Yelling on the other hand is kind of pointless. If you yell at a kid it will most likely make them cry more, or do whatever you want them to stop doing. I always think it's stupid when I see parents telling their toddlers to shut up, because most of the time it makes them make more noise, because me telling my kid to shut up, yelling it at them, isn't really going to teach them. Getting hit hurts. Getting yelled at is obnoxious, but it doesn't really hurt.

But hitting a kid repeatedly and every time they do something unsatisfactory is taking things too far, so it's important for the parent to not overdo it, because it may scar the kid and also scar them later in life, which isn't what a parent is trying to accomplish if they do hit their child. Also, it may make the kid think that it's OK that people are hitting them later in life, and not think anything of it because that's what they're used to, which is also a bad result of this.



All in all, it can be helpful to teach kids what behaviors are okay and not okay from a young age, but overdoing it can be harmful to the kid later in life.

If yelling at a kid will make them cry, don't you think hitting them will have the same effect? I know when I was a kid, I'd rather be yelled at then slapped. and it's not like getting hit ever taught me more of a lesson. I already knew what I did wrong, so getting slapped/hit was just a step too far.

let's go through ages

0-7: You may think nobody hits babies, since they don't know if they're doing something wrong, but people still shake or slap babies to stop them from crying, a useless and hurtful procedure. And up until 7, children are still very fragile and even something light will make them cry (mind you, out of pain, and not guilt, as they would when being yelled at). Going against SOLID, do you really want your child to get hurt? Punishment, at its worst, should be an obnoxious reminder that you did something wrong, IMO.

7-12: It's around these years that children can really form bad relations with parents and become rebellious. Sure, it's mostly in the teens, but this is the starting point, and after this it only gets worse. What also occasionally still happens around this age is Corporal Punishment. "Spanking" is more dangerous then people think. I found some disturbing news at http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm

"[Corporal Punishment is] Prone to being escalated to a lethal level. The Department of Health and Human Services and the New England Journal of Medicine estimate that 1,000 to 2,000 children die every year in the U.S. from corporal punishment that has gotten out of control. They estimate that 142,000 are seriously injured annually."
*note: brackets added by me*

13-18: Sure, teenagers can "handle it" without crying. but is it still right to physically hit teenagers? They're practically adults, and more and more evidence states that they think like adults too. Sure, it cannot be denied that they do some stupid stuff, but I believe that's due to their raging hormones and inexperience overall. is it right to punish a teenager for something that, in many ways, isn't their fault? Sure they need to be taught, but with everything a teenager owns these days, something as simple as taking away his/her cell phone for a week can be a punishment. Most teens are as big as their parents, and yet it's unheard of for a teenager to hit their parent and get away with it. Because really, adults can be just as stupid as teenagers.

I am not in favor of yelling. I agree it's ineffective. Still, I think it's a step above any physical confrontation. In all honesty, I'm against punishment in general, for I think talking it out with your child, and trying to reason with them is a better solution.

 

[Vorguen]

It is a fact that all 50 states allow corporal punishment (including spanking and belting) so long as it does not lead up to their standards of child abuse.

Punishment in itself is detrimental to a child. Children need to be taught the concept of discipline, and not punishment. Making up ridiculous rules for a child to follow because he misbehaved or physically hurting them for their misbehavior causes psychological harm to the child. A child does not learn from unreasonable punishments, they do not learn from their mistakes only from the injustices served on them. Children and young teenagers often start to become rebellious for this very reason as well. Knowing how to properly discipline your child will prevent problems as they grow up. A child does not understand at a young age why he is being spanked, all he understands is that it is okay to hit someone when you are angry.

Corporal punishment does not work.

Corporal punishment induces fear in a child, this in turn causes a lack of trust between the parent and child. This does not teach a child to rectify his behavior, this only teaches a child to avoid being caught.


Sources:

Jennifer Shroff Pendley, PhD

http://kidshealth.org
www.childadvocate.org

 

[.Marik]

I agree with the two above posts.

Corporal punishment does not work.

At all. It only leads to severe emotional and hostility issues.

 

[RDK]

If yelling at a kid will make them cry, don't you think hitting them will have the same effect? I know when I was a kid, I'd rather be yelled at then slapped. and it's not like getting hit ever taught me more of a lesson. I already knew what I did wrong, so getting slapped/hit was just a step too far.

let's go through ages

0-7: You may think nobody hits babies, since they don't know if they're doing something wrong, but people still shake or slap babies to stop them from crying, a useless and hurtful procedure. And up until 7, children are still very fragile and even something light will make them cry (mind you, out of pain, and not guilt, as they would when being yelled at). Going against SOLID, do you really want your child to get hurt? Punishment, at its worst, should be an obnoxious reminder that you did something wrong, IMO.

7-12: It's around these years that children can really form bad relations with parents and become rebellious. Sure, it's mostly in the teens, but this is the starting point, and after this it only gets worse. What also occasionally still happens around this age is Corporal Punishment. "Spanking" is more dangerous then people think. I found some disturbing news at http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm

"[Spanking is] Prone to being escalated to a lethal level. The Department of Health and Human Services and the New England Journal of Medicine estimate that 1,000 to 2,000 children die every year in the U.S. from corporal punishment that has gotten out of control. They estimate that 142,000 are seriously injured annually."
*note: brackets added by me*

13-18: Sure, teenagers can "handle it" without crying. but is it still right to physically hit teenagers? They're practically adults, and more and more evidence states that they think like adults too. Sure, it cannot be denied that they do some stupid stuff, but I believe that's due to their raging hormones and inexperience overall. is it right to punish a teenager for something that, in many ways, isn't their fault? Sure they need to be taught, but with everything a teenager owns these days, something as simple as taking away his/her cell phone for a week can be a punishment. Most teens are as big as their parents, and yet it's unheard of for a teenager to hit their parent and get away with it. Because really, adults can be just as stupid as teenagers.

I am not in favor of yelling. I agree it's ineffective. Still, I think it's a step above any physical confrontation. In all honesty, I'm against punishment in general, for I think talking it out with your child, and trying to reason with them is a better solution.

It is a fact that all 50 states allow corporal punishment (including spanking and belting) so long as it does not lead up to their standards of child abuse.

Punishment in itself is detrimental to a child. Children need to be taught the concept of discipline, and not punishment. Making up ridiculous rules for a child to follow because he misbehaved or physically hurting them for their misbehavior causes psychological harm to the child. A child does not learn from unreasonable punishments, they do not learn from their mistakes only from the injustices served on them. Children and young teenagers often start to become rebellious for this very reason as well. Knowing how to properly discipline your child will prevent problems as they grow up. A child does not understand at a young age why he is being spanked, all he understands is that it is okay to hit someone when you are angry.

Corporal punishment does not work.

Corporal punishment induces fear in a child, this in turn causes a lack of trust between the parent and child. This does not teach a child to rectify his behavior, this only teaches a child to avoid being caught.


Sources:

Jennifer Shroff Pendley, PhD

http://kidshealth.org
www.childadvocate.org

Just letting you guys know that these are very impressive posts.

The big thing about links is that you have to remember their purpose. Coming into a thread, posting a link with no summary information, and then leaving is bad debating. You shouldn't expect your opponents to just read whatever website you post as the bulk of your argument; the whole point of debating is to sum up the information in your source and present it in your own words.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Nothing to see here.

 

[handsockpuppet]

I punish my son in several ways, depending on what he's doing.

If he's just being mischievous, I tell him to stop. For example, if he grabs the TV remote, I take it away from him and put it back where he got it. This doesn't work, and he almost always goes right back for it, so we go back and forth. It's no big deal though, the worst he's going to do is put the batteries in his mouth, so I just go back and forth with him until he loses interest or I get tired and put the remote out of his reach.

If he's being disruptive, like knocking things over and throwing things, I put him in time-out (so to speak). I'll sit him down and tell him not to move, and he listens. However, he's too young to understand the words, but he understands my tone, so I yell at him. He gets the picture, and after he calms down I let him go about his business.

If he's doing something dangerous, like grabbing plugs in sockets or reaching for knives/scissors etc., then I hit him. There's not words or reasoning, I just want him to understand in the simplest terms and as quickly as possible that what he is doing is wrong, and the fastest route to that is pain. Whatever I do to him by hitting him on the hand is far better that what an outlet or knife will do to him.

Whether or not my son likes me is irrelevant. I'm not his friend, I'm his father, and my job is to make sure that he's safe, warm and full. If I can accomplish those goals by sitting him down and explaining why is behavior is wrong, fine, but I'd like to see anyone reason with a two year old.

I can agree with hitting him on the hand as a last resort when he is doing something dangerous. Of course, I insist on moderation, because besides the ethical wrongness of hurting a child, if done too hard his curiosity and "mischief" will still make it tempting, except this time without getting caught. Of course a two year old doesn't know what he/she is doing, unless told not to do it, but even then it might not matter. Once they put the thing down, however, I don't think they should be physically punished. Kids like being mischievous, and even though told it's not safe, they often can't think of what could happen if they do it (knives may be more obvious, but how would they know the can get electrocuted by something that they touch all the time and never did anything to them before?). While it may not be your number one priority to have your child like you, breaking the vicious cycle of child abuse and physical punishment is important.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;101/4/723 Is yet another site that points out the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment. Many people who defend it, they say, do not have many reasons behind it, besides the fact that they are trying to explain why their parents did that to them. This website also takes a (somewhat) interesting stand on verbal punishment

"Many parents use disapproving verbal statements as a form of punishment to alter undesired behavior. When used infrequently and targeted toward specific behaviors, such reprimands may be transiently effective in immediately halting or reducing undesirable behaviors. However, if used frequently and indiscriminately, verbal reprimands lose their effectiveness and become reinforcers of undesired behavior because they provide attention to the child. Verbal reprimands given by parents during time-out are a major cause of reduced effectiveness of this form of discipline. Verbal reprimands should refer to the undesirable behavior and not slander the child's character. "

 

[yummynbeefy]

to be honest
i dont think it should be illegal to hit your kids but it should be looked down upon
some kids just need something more than "HEY STOP IT YOU BRAT!!!" or a simple punishment

and my teacher always says "the biggest mistake they made was to take hitting out of the school disipline system"

i agree more or less with this

 

[ArcPoint]

If yelling at a kid will make them cry, don't you think hitting them will have the same effect? I know when I was a kid, I'd rather be yelled at then slapped. and it's not like getting hit ever taught me more of a lesson. I already knew what I did wrong, so getting slapped/hit was just a step too far.
let's go through ages

A person knowing they did something wrong versus getting punished for something they did wrong is entirely different. A person can know that murdering someone is wrong, is getting thrown into jail a step too far? This is just parental law, so to speak and Federal Law, you obviously have been made aware that doing whatever action is wrong according to your parents.

0-7: You may think nobody hits babies, since they don't know if they're doing something wrong, but people still shake or slap babies to stop them from crying, a useless and hurtful procedure. And up until 7, children are still very fragile and even something light will make them cry (mind you, out of pain, and not guilt, as they would when being yelled at). Going against SOLID, do you really want your child to get hurt? Punishment, at its worst, should be an obnoxious reminder that you did something wrong, IMO.

I agree that hitting babies is wrong, because they have no concept of right and wrong yet, hitting them for crying (When they probably want something like food, or maybe a toy or whatever) is...useless, there's no point if the child doesn't understand that what he/she is doing is wrong. That is why I don't believe in the immediate resort to pain, I believe in something like our law system, where the punishment is less severe for first time offenders, but more severe for multiple time offenders. Unless the "offense" is severe for a child (Playing with knives, outlets), but mind you, you would have to explain the risks of playing with outlets, so they're not encouraged to try it until something happens. Children often want to know WHY they're not allowed to do something, and if you tell them "You might DIE if you screw around with the outlet," if they understand the concept of death, then they'll know not to do that.

7-12: It's around these years that children can really form bad relations with parents and become rebellious. Sure, it's mostly in the teens, but this is the starting point, and after this it only gets worse. What also occasionally still happens around this age is Corporal Punishment. "Spanking" is more dangerous then people think. I found some disturbing news at http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm

"[Corporal Punishment is] Prone to being escalated to a lethal level. The Department of Health and Human Services and the New England Journal of Medicine estimate that 1,000 to 2,000 children die every year in the U.S. from corporal punishment that has gotten out of control. They estimate that 142,000 are seriously injured annually."
*note: brackets added by me*

Yes, it is a sad thing that people abuse children. I would argue that "serious injury" and "death" do not fall under "Corporal Punishment," they fall under Murder and Child Abuse, both of which are highly detrimental to a child's future.

13-18: Sure, teenagers can "handle it" without crying. but is it still right to physically hit teenagers? They're practically adults, and more and more evidence states that they think like adults too. Sure, it cannot be denied that they do some stupid stuff, but I believe that's due to their raging hormones and inexperience overall. is it right to punish a teenager for something that, in many ways, isn't their fault? Sure they need to be taught, but with everything a teenager owns these days, something as simple as taking away his/her cell phone for a week can be a punishment. Most teens are as big as their parents, and yet it's unheard of for a teenager to hit their parent and get away with it. Because really, adults can be just as stupid as teenagers.

Once you get into the upper teens, I agree that the Corporal Punishment should be reduced or eliminated. Parents should have taught them right and wrong by now, they should have taught them that alcohol is bad in large doses, don't have sex until marriage (if they believe that), don't do drugs, don't murder, etc etc. THe upper teens is when parents should start letting go, since they have to at 18 anyway.

I am not in favor of yelling. I agree it's ineffective. Still, I think it's a step above any physical confrontation. In all honesty, I'm against punishment in general, for I think talking it out with your child, and trying to reason with them is a better solution.

With first time offenses? Sure, they need to be taught it's wrong, and to not do it again. Multiple times? More severe punishment should be earned (albeit, nothing severe enough to injure a child).

 

[Cheapless Jared]

Yes, it is a sad thing that people abuse children. I would argue that "serious injury" and "death" do not fall under "Corporal Punishment," they fall under Murder and Child Abuse, both of which are highly detrimental to a child's future.

I recall a couple of months ago, my health class was trying to teach us the circle of abuse. If you are abused as a child, chance is, you will think that's normal and you will abuse your children. It becomes a cycle and goes on unless someone puts a stop to it. Apparently, since it still goes on, our government isn't taking a strong enough action. However, they can't go too far or else it will make it as if you were to flick something off of a child, you'd be arrested.
Problem is, the government doesn't know what to do. We have to make the people who abuse kids more aware about the seriousness of their crimes. But, the government has taken no action yet.

 

[:mad:]

I recall a couple of months ago, my health class was trying to teach us the circle of abuse. If you are abused as a child, chance is, you will think that's normal and you will abuse your children. It becomes a cycle and goes on unless someone puts a stop to it. Apparently, since it still goes on, our government isn't taking a strong enough action. However, they can't go too far or else it will make it as if you were to flick something off of a child, you'd be arrested.
Problem is, the government doesn't know what to do. We have to make the people who abuse kids more aware about the seriousness of their crimes. But, the government has taken no action yet.

Doesn't matter, during the coarse of your life, someone will talk to you about being abused. Whether it be a therapist, counselor, parent, whatever. Sooner or later, you'll develop bad habits, and eventually, you'll have to talk to someone, and it will get resolved. Abuse in children is fairly scarce today in terms of who gets caught, it probably happens more than we know.

No matter what you do, it will never be a 100% fix. Someone will get hit somewhere in this country.

And your logic is flawed concerning the cycle. There are several people with mental disabilities that often do things by accident.
Our government is taking enough action, there's not much they can do about it, seeing as how they're worried about our economy, wars, and pollution. Leave it to the state legislature to get something done about it. And that's pretty vague, saying the government has taken no action. There are many groups that rally together, and try to help children every day.

 

[Maniclysane]

Since most people in this topic are taking the side of 'physical punishment is fine in moderation', I'll try and play the devils advocate, even though I agree with the previous statement.

As Maniclysane said, when you hit your kid, it makes it seem okay to hit people when you're mad. Most, not all, of the time parents resort to physical punishment when they are angry at their child for doing something wrong, however I believe that hitting is also a way to get the emotions of the parents out, sort of like 'revenge'.

But, if you explain to your kid that the only reason you are hitting them is because they did something wrong, would this fix the problem? I think not, kids being kids will still think that you're only hitting them because you're angry.

I must say, this is a very interesting topic, thank you Meta-Kirby.

Why hit then explain? Why not just explain? Do something to them. Take away TV for a month, ground them, make them regret the mistake. Hurting them will make them regret trusting you, and telling you what they did wrong. The first time I skipped doing a project, my parents hit me. Very hard. It's hard to tell the truth when the punishment is pain.

I can understand your kid swearing a bunch, or breaking something of high value, then maybe giving them a quick slap, but anything beyond that is violence, not discipline.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

The fact that it's allowed in all 50 states tells me that it should be tolerated, because I think it's a pretty big issue, not just some random thing that they don't care about, because hitting a child is pretty serious in my eyes. Not to say I always agree with the government, not by a long shot. Like I said, IN MODERATION. All the time is child abuse, which is illegal, and not right at all. But I've kind of changed my mind after reading some of these posts, to the point where I could argue either way.


So, on the pro side of hitting kids is that it will make them un-soft, teach them from a young age what's wrong and right, and prepare them for the future in a way, since people are going to hit them in life.

On the con side, it's hitting a kid (pretty self explanatory) can make a kid not trust their parents, and perhaps fear them, as well as the fact that it could escalate to child abuse pretty darn quickly.

Yeah, I probably should pick a side... I'll think on it.

 

[ArcPoint]

And children will tell their parents if they get grounded? Children most likely won't be telling their parents about it if they get any form of punishment for doing so.

 

[Rain(ame)]

I think the most important aspect of things here missing is the communication. I'm going to go out here and say this:

If a child is told to not put their hand on a stove, they'll probably do it anyway. There are a couple ways to go here:

1.) Place the child's hand on a stove to show them ahead of time what'd happen. - that has got the be the most cruel and unrealistic thing anyone could do.

2.) Explain to them WHY it can happen. Perhaps even showing what happens to something inanimate. Children always as "why?" so be sure to explain

3.) Tell them, and then allow them to experience it on their own. Technically, this one and the previous go hand in hand. This method is more of, "You'll burn yourself, it'll hurt." The pain they feel is more than enough to remind them of WHY they should stay away. In essence, there's no need to discipline them.

4.) repeatedly tell them no, until they learn or burn themselves...no real form of communication, though.


Now the difference between those situations is that communication is probably the best key and answer. The second option would be the best one. They might not listen and try it anyway...but there's no need to say much more to them, or to punish them.

Communication is the key:
Never beat a child out of anger, it's something my parents never did. Even when it came to my older brother that was ALWAYS acting up. If we got "spanked" it was because of a reason. We were told the reason, and we understood WHY we were being disciplined. The problem is...knowing your child. I got far less beatings than my other two brothers because most of the time, it took my parents yelling at me for me to get the point. Not every child is like that, though. You have to try different forms of discipline, and don't just stick to one.

1.) Sometimes...if a situation calls for it...just yelling at a child may do the trick.
2.) Other times...if the child persists, a "spanking" or even a swift slap will do the trick.
3.) Other times it's taking away privileges or even just keeping them from a certain event.
4.) Another thing is to add responsibilities.


The point is...with children, it's a case-by-case situation. You don't ALWAYS need to resort to physical discipline, yell, or ground them. Also, sometimes you don't even need to yell. The more severe a situation...the less you should be prone to yelling. If it's something pretty bad...just tell them "I'll talk to you later." Cool off, and then have a discussion with them, as opposed to getting excited. That seems to be the point that a lot of parents are missing today. I was forced to "spank" my nephew once because he persisted in actions that yelling and removal of privileges didn't take. He didn't think I would take action so he kept pushing limits. If a child does that...then it means you need to take physical discipline as an option. I didn't do it out of anger, I did it because he was acting up. I talked to him afterwards and made sure he understood WHY he got the spanking. After that, he just needed to be reminded of what happens if he persists in acting up.

You won't scare a child into not telling you anything if you discipline them physically. You won't scare them if you yell occasionally. So long as you TALK to them, and don't just act out of emotion, they'll see you're not doing it because you're "angry", and appreciate it when they get older.

Younger children need "spankings", while older teenagers get hurt in ways that don't require immediate action or even "grounding". You can take away things that'll make them think twice about what they do. "Oh...you want to go out to the movies? Hmm...let's see about that." Don't hold something against them for weeks or months on end, because that's just wrong, but you hit them where it hurts. My brother was always listening to his music...my parents took his radio/cd player/ tape player away from him. Where as when I was younger, they took games or TV away from me. Maybe they hate housework just that much? Increase the housework a bit for a week or two. Don't yell at them when doing it...make sure they know.

Another thing that was punishment enough was when my dad didn't want to punish me. He'd talk...and he'd talk for 2 hours or even longer. There are ways to reach your children and discipline them without resorting to physical discipline, but make sure they have that fear of it. Also....they'll have a fear of disappointing you. You communicate with your child and make sure they KNOW why they're getting disciplined. Make sure you hear what they have to say...and their attitude towards the situation. It's case-by-case.


I respect my parents and parents of people I know for taking that approach because it shows that physical discipline has it's place, just like other forms. It doesn't tell children it's okay to just hit people when they're mad, either. I've never actually hit a person before, even when I'm mad. I know other people that have the same attitude. There's a reason behind that...because we KNEW WHY we were being disciplined. The more and more various forms of discipline are being refused, especially physical, the more children are lashing out nowadays. I don't think it should be in the school systems, but parents should definitely handle their children in that aspect.

 

[|RK|]

I believe that spanking is a viable tactic, so long as the child knows why they are receiving the punishment. Most children still love their parents even after being spanked, despite hateful comments stemming from anger.

I work in my church's Sunday School. The children there get extremely playful and disrespectful at times. Naturally, we aren't allowed to administer physical punishment. Thus, we exhibit certain tactics spoken of earlier. For example:

1) Threatening taking something away (In this case, their snack)
2) Threatening to tell their parents

Now, the reason that the second point works so well, is because they might get:

a) Grounded
b) Spanked

This shows that spanking is still a useful tactic. However, I'd like to debate that it gets to a certain point where smaller discipline is needed. I was whipped when I was younger, and I do advocate spankings. However, if you are angry for something, you probably shouldn't go near your belt. Normally, spankings sometimes get furious and are a way for parents to release anger at their children without getting labeled as child abusers. Spanking should be moderated.

Typical Christian parents quote the Bible "Don't spare the rod and spoil the child," when they are using spankings as a means to justify an end. There are many effective forms of discipline, and I believe that spanking should be one of them. Not overused, but not underused either, as pain normally teaches children better than soft words.

If you were to, say, take away the remote repeatedly, the child will either get frustrated, or think that it's a game. There are times when harsher punishment is needed, as when the child becomes older, he'd fight for the remote better. Some lab rats are trained by a shock whenever something, like a color is introduced to their environment, like say, cheese. This shock repeatedly will cause that rat to stay away from the cheese. If you keep just telling them no, they will continuously pursue the thing they want when their older. Another Biblical quote "Train up a child in the way that he should go, so that when he gets old he should not depart from it."

The children of the world today are barely given discipline. They have no respect for their elders and are being trained worse and worse. I fear for my generation's children. Everything that was once considered law is being unstrung. Spanking and other forms of physical discipline are some of the best tools of discipline and should remain in society, increased in multiple areas, in fact.

 

[Mr. Rogu]

This is a great debate topic. I do not like parents hitting their own child if they are misbehaving. I could not even imagine myself hitting my own child if I eventually have one. I would just feel horrible. Are you seriously going to smack your 6 year old kid if they are misbehaving?

There are effective ways to discipline a child without hitting them. What my parents did to me was mainly take away things that I loved to do. They might of taking tv away from me or saying you cant ride your bike for a week.

Another thing that could possibley work is making your child do work. I also did this a lot when I got in trouble. They'll complain and say how not fun it is and think twice before doing whatever they did that got them in trouble in the first place.

I dont agree with hitting a child but i also dont agree not punishing the child at all. If the parent lets them do anything not get away with it, they probably end up making trouble in their life after they move out of the house. Theres probably a few that got that kind of treatment and learned to responsible but its likely not to happen like that.