Disiplining children...what role should government play?

It seems that today, a parent who physically displines (not ABUSES) their own child, through a smack on the wrist or spanking, is taking a huge risk. With social services and schools on the look out for acutal abusers, many parents who simply implement corparal punishment are being accused of "battering" their children.

Surely, physical "violence" (i.e. spanking, slapping of hand to stop bad behavior) should be the LAST resort for parents. But, after "timeouts" in the corner, and taking away the child's priviledges doesn't work, shouldn't a parent have the RIGHT to RESONABLY physically disipline their OWN CHILD, without the state interviening?

I am not ancient (30), and remember being hit, spanked, and even hit with the ol' switch from the tree (remember having to get that damn thing?!) in front of my friends and neighbors. My friends were ALSO physically disiplined in public when they misbehaved. No one called child and protective services on these parents...and the VAST MAJORITY of the parents (usually women in my neighborhood) were NOT abusing their children, only displining them. In most cases, the kids that I grew up with, that I have met later in life are well-adjusted, decent people who don't "abuse" anyone.

IMO, a little physical disipline is fine. But, I believe we are living in such p.c. times, that these agencies that are supposed to protect ACTUAL abused children, are actually taking authority and power away from decent non-abusive parents. I have had several friend with older kids, have their kids say to them, "If you spank me, I will tell my teacher, and you will go to jail!" ...This is after the kid misbehaved of course! Unbelievable.

I think it's time for adults to start acting like adults and to enpower parents. I know there is a line between disipline and abuse, but I honestly believe and occasional smack on the wrist or butt can get a disruptive child in line when all else fails. I don't believe GOVERNMENT should be so involved in how people raise their children.

Why was it ok for my parents and (some) of my generation to be spanked/hit when misbehaving, while today's children get "Tommy, can you please stop stabbing your sister with that kitchen knife?" I don't feel that most people my age or older were in any way "damaged" by being physically disiplined on occasions. What are your thoughts on disiplining children? What limits would you set for physically punishing your child? Do you believe the state has the right to tell you to NOT "reasonably" spank/slap your own kid?

Here's an article from the bbc: UK pushes to ban smacking

 

I think that physical discipline is fine. Of course there are some parents who might overdo it even if their intention is not to abuse. I think the best way to discipline physically is to avoid spontaneous reactions. Never discipline out of anger, always discipline out of love.

Institutions are needed to prevent child abuse, but good physical discipline that is positively reinforced is needed. Otherwise we will end up with a generation of deliquents.

 

I agree with you.

I was spanked when I was younger and I can't say I'm worse off for it. Personally, I'm fine with forms of physical discipline that don't impair the child in any way and don't leave bruises.

 

I guess the problem is that some parents are incapable of restraining themselves and can only stop from abusing their children by never laying a hand on them.

Children should never be abused, never be hurt permanently whether it be physical, mental, or emotional. They have their whole lives ahead of them without the need for all that baggage.

But I also think that there are FAR too many children who are spoiled brats because their parents didn't set consquences and limits enough. I think parents can raise their kids without spanking them, but I also think that in some cases, physical pain is necessary.

It should be left up to each individual parent, not the government to decide how to punish their children. (Unless it's obviously abuse)

I remember being spanked. It rarely happened and I know my mom wasn't happy at all about doing it, but it only brought more respect and definately did nothing to hinder my growth.

 

I guess the problem is that some parents are incapable of restraining themselves and can only stop from abusing their children by never laying a hand on them.

My dad gave me advice with this in mind. NEVER spank a child when you are angry.

In a Womens magazine that was left in the bathroom and made handy reading material they did an article of Spanking children. Some people say its barbaric no matter what, this in fact is not true, there is a point to where it becomes barbaric. A couple of swats on the hind end never killed anyone, but on the other hand you shouldn't try to hit the kid so hard he/she has an extra butt crack for a few days. A couple of swats and be done with it, let them no you mean business, and what ever you do, dont send a kid to his/her room where he/she has a Nintendo, TV, cable, computer, video games, and things they enjoy. Better yet, make them stand in the corner, I hated that as a kid.

 

There is sometimes a fine line between discipline and abuse, so I don't envy social workers and teachers who have to decide whether a child is abused or merely disciplined.

My definition of abuse have been that if it leaves a mark ten minutes later, or there's swelling, then the parent have been abusive.

Part of the problem with differentiating between discipline and abuse is that many abusive parents do love their children and want the best, and they don't realize that what they've done is abusive.

Also, people who see children getting hit in public might assume that the child receives much worse in private.

I understand that there are good parents out there who feel persecuted for smacking their children, but I also know people who have been abused by their parents when they were young and their teachers never reported it, so I can sympathize with people who might---erroneously---report parents when they see a child being hit.

 

I wasn't reguarly physically disciplined as a child, but the couple of times my parents hit me, when they were angry, it just made the situation worse. I would just start SCREAMING and no one in the house would get any peace. So I won't be disciplining my children, when I haev children, physically, because I don't believe it works (it certainly didn't work on me) and I don't want to cause any physical pain to my own children. But at the same time, if no harm comes to the child, I don't think it constitutes abuse, and the government should not interfere.

 

Ok, I'm not a P.C. person, and I think that discipline is a natural part of many animal societies and how they maintain self-order...

However, my question is... Why hit a child when they can learn more effectively from the direct, natural consequences of their actions?

What I find ironic in America is that those who want others to be told what to eat, what to wear, what to watch, what to hear, what to say, what to do... are not willing themselves to be told what they can and cannot do.

The apathy which makes us turn to government for "subsidized parenting" becomes hypocrisy when we are not willing ourselves to be policed in a similar capacity by that same government.

 

Why hit a child when they can learn more effectively from the direct, natural consequences of their actions?

Because doing the wrong thing doesn't always have immediate effect, if it has an effect, and it does not always affect the child. If someone a young child doesn't even know suffer's from that child's action, will the child learn not to do it again? Possibly. But empathy, along with a sense for the long-term, isn't all instinct. It has to be developed.

 

This may sound abusive and barbaric, but here goes -

Think about how children learn. When they do something right, they get a reward - it may be a toy, or a sweet, or some other enjoyable experience. When the child msbehaves, you have to punish, in order to ensure the misbehaviour is not repeated. The question is how do you punish? My belief is that to a certain extent, pain is the best and most memorable lesson a child have get.

For example, when you learn to walk, you quickly realise that it hurts to fall over, or at least, you quickly realise that it is an experience you want to repeat too often. In other words, you remember the pain of falling over, and the fact that it is not an experience you want to repeat is learned. When misbehaviour is not punished in a manner which is remembered from the child's POV, the punishment is ineffective, and the behaviour will likely be repeated.

Naturally, the next question is "how much is enough?" There is a fine line as to what constitutes abuse, and what constitutes mell intended punishment. One or two firm spanks isn't to cause lasting damage to a child, unless you're Superman, IMHO. When I'm put into the position of having to discipline my child, I'll have to think about it further.

 

I don't have kids of my own so I don't know what I'd actually end up doing with my own kids.

Spanking should definately never be done in anger, and it definately shouldn't leave a mark. Maybe some redness but that should dissappear within a relative quick amount of time. Any more than that and you've gone over the mark.

I also think spanking works best for younger kids and I would never do it on older kids. Young kids only think of immeadiate results. A bit of pain tends to get the message across pretty well. But once the child has some reasoning abilities, he or she can think of other and more distant consequences depending on age.

And never ever threaten to spank your children and then don't do it ... repeatedly.

 

I think it's wrong on a really little kid. They don't understand what right or wrong is, and they usually don't disobey on purpose. Like... say a toddler knocks over a breakable object. They wouldn't know it was wrong or to be careful around it, because they are too young.

 

Spanking a kid because they knocked over an object is usually wrong. They don't know better. Spanking a kid after they consistently do something wrong and all other measures have been tried is okay in some instances.

 

Well, say, an older kid, would be taught to be careful around a valuable object. So if they knocked it over, it would be because they were going against the rules and being careless around it, which wouldn't be good. Now, there are accidents, and then there's playing ball around the antique vase. But still, I believe any kind of physical punishment is wrong if the child is too young to have any concept of right or wrong. I don't know when kids first get that, since I honestly don't remember. I mean, if a baby keeps knocking breakable objects over, there isn't really a way to teach them what they are doing is wrong.

And I'm trying to think of a better example of something a reallllly little kid could do wrong, but I dunno. They are too young to do much...

 

Sometimes, mental pain is more memorable than physical. Stick, stones and words all hurt equally. It just depends on who says the words and which they use. In the case of sticks and stones, it depends on how you try to inflict pain in the person. I'd hate it more if I got a long lecture than just a slap in the wrist. What really hurts is when you scream at your child. REALLY LOUD. Debatebly, it could be verbal abuse.

 

Abuse can come in many forms and so can disciplining children. I don't see a need to ever yell at your child or scream a them ... unless they're in immeadiate danger like a car is coming at them. And even then a calm voice may be more effective.

But to get back to the main point. I don't think that government has to right to stop parents from disciplining their children in the way they think best unless it definately constitutes abuse.

 

If they think the treatment a child is recieving MIGHT be abuse, they should investigate it. Better a child is taken away from their parents for a little while then that same child ending up dead.

 

Unfortunately, Rebecca, the problem is that government agencies responsible for such decisions are extremist - they don't have a clearly defined line on which to make their decisions. They may decide that one open handed spank on the buttocks constitutes child abuse, and rule that the child be placed in protective custody. Another instance might see a teacher's report that a child has bruises all over his back ignored because the officer sent to investigate can't find any evidence of abuse, because the agency has called to advise of the visit.

There seems to be a lack of common sense and too much strict abidance to the rules in childrens services agencies. Investigators need to be able to use their judgement as to what constitutes a dangerous situation, and they have to be experienced in exercising that judgement. In other words, the best sort of agent would be a person who has raised a child to be a well adjusted member of society.

 

I don't believe in spanking children that are old enough to reason with (at least not as a rule).
But children under five or six can't understand why it's wrong to stick a fork in an outlet or why they shouldn't be touching the stove. Since I can't explain to them why these things are bad I have to reinforce such ideas in any other way I can to make sure that they don't injure themselves grievously.
So if my kid is running around with a fork I'll give a little swat and then take the fork away. This seems to be the most effective and if you never hit your child with malice or with force (just enough to sting slightly) I don't see why this would not be an acceptable method.

 

" My definition of abuse have been that if it leaves a mark ten minutes later, or there's swelling, then the parent have been abusive. "

Not always. Please. When I was a lad and I got really out of line, I would either get a spanking, a slap on the wrist or my moms pinches.

I didn't think it was wrong. Yeah, no kid likes a spanking. But it is needed at certain times.

And let me tell you, sometimes I got a spanking that left my tush red and sore.

Was it abusive? No. Not at all. It wasn't done out of malice or hate or during anger. Yes, parents are in a sense angry at you, but that is a different type of anger than hitting someone in "anger".

So, my ass was red. Not abuse at all. And a red ass, is like a mark.

Now, bruises or cuts or that sort, that is abusive.

But I think spaking your child is fine.

I think only one time in my life I got the belt, and that was from my grandfather. Yikes! I was being way out of line that time. He took out the belt, and said if I didn't behave, I would get the belt. I of course, disregraded him, did what I want anyway. And he gave me a crack at the belt on my ass.

You can believe I behaved.

And was it abuse? No. Hell, I asked for it and needed it. Got me into shape. Well, for that night at least. Whenever my grandfather pointed at his belt, I would then run to my grandmother heh

even when they're 8 or 9, yeah, they can reason. But sometimes they just don't want to or don't care. Like I sometimes did. And I wasn't a terrible kid at all. I did regular kid stuff. But at home, I was usually pretty well behaved. But from time to time, I would turn into the Tasmanian Devil heh

Now, about rasing your voice... no one ever wants to. But sometimes, you have to. And it is a natural reaction. I mean, my nephew, for example. Sometimes he will screw up big time, so I raise my voice at him.

I stopped getting spankings when I was about 10 or 11.

Although, my mom would yell at me or pinch me.

Hell, I'm an adult now. I'm in my 20's and my mom still pinches me from time to time when I become a smart mouth and talk back.

 

I agree. I think the fact that so many parents are "afraid" to resonably disipine their children, empowers the CHILDREN and makes them feel they can control their parents to get their way. (I have several friends who's kids have done this in front of me!)

When I was a kid, I was treated as one...NOT as a "little adult". I was NEVER allowed to come into question the authority of my mother. That would amount to "blashemy" in my, and MOST of my friends home. The fact is, the vast majority of parents (ADULTS) DO know what is best for their children. Children should NEVER be made to feel that they have power over their parents decision making when it comes to disipline IMO.

 

Not being a parent, I'm pretty much undecided on the whole issue.

But I don't know if I agree with the idea that it's okay to hit kids when they're too young to mentally comprehend cause and effect. Some adults mind's do not mature beyond that of a toddler, yet it would be completely wrong to hit them.

Talking about the government's role ... one thing I believe is wrong is corporal punishment in schools, which is, when you think about it, the government taking a role in disciplining children.

 

Until population controls are established and the state can be certain that no abusive, naive, cruel, sadistic, twisted, disturbed, uncertain, depressed, violent, or otherwise inadiquate people ever have children, then allowing ANY forms of physical discipline should NOT be allowed PERIOD. And until only more reasonable, respectable, and level-headed people are parents, then the punishment for physically harming another human, child or otherwise, should be handled with equal and greater physical punishment against the offender.

There is no way that most parents should be allowed to have children, and then raise them and be allowed to dispense discipline, especially since the parents are MORE often than not either wrong themselves, too extreme, do not understand the situation at hand, or simply using their child as a proverbial punching bag. It is absolutely desgusting that children, (who less than two hundred years ago were considered humans, but now are not) are being physically harassed and tormented by their parents/family members/other parents. Any sort of physical "discipline" is a violation of the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, article 5.

It is immature, close-minded, and naive to believe that parents always are correct and know what is right and how to discipline the children which they have spawned. (I do not say THEIR children, because that implies that the child is the property of the parent, and so may be treated that way) Granted, there are situations where the parent does know what is correct and the child is in the wrong, but considering the number of cases where this is not so, the percentage of situations where this is so is infintessimally small.

Children today are living in worse conditions than the slaves of the American south in th 1850's. At that time, if a slave owner killed a slave without clear and evident reason why such harsh punishment should be dealt, then the slave owner would be heavily fined and put in jail for several years. Today, if a parent or any adult attacks and kills a child for any reason (even if there is no reason) then the maximum sentence does not exceed more than a couple of years. Yet, if a child kills an adult, even if it is self-defence or when there is an extreme amount of provocation involved, then the minimum sentence is not less than a decade. Does this seem fair to You? I pity those who think that it is, and would be more than willing to dance and sing on your graves.

Here is another example of how children are abused by society and its laws. A fourty-something (sorry, cant remember exactly right now) attacked and raped a thirty-three year old woman. He spent the next twenty years in jail and was released without any restrictions on his life thereafter. Weeks after getting out of jail, he rapes, tortures, and almost kills a 12-year-old girl. For that crime, which was far more disasterous, he recieved three years in jail with a two-year parole sentence. He now lives in a neighborhood populated by many children, not too far from my home. Children are abused and harassed by society and its laws, and this must also be changed.

Parents in general do not know what is best. They are given too many rights and privelages, while the children who are bound to them are in a state worse than slavery (which is legal for children in the United States as long as it doesn't leave publicly visible scars, despite the 13th amendment, which is one of the great inadiquacies and ironies of the "Great" and "free" nation of the US of A) When the children are right and the parents are wrong, they are unfairly abused and punished, which is explained as "discipline". When a child makes a mistake and is not allowed to explain him/herself, then again they are punished. When the parents make a mistake and don't want to take the blame, then who is their scapegoat? The children, of course. This trend must be stopped. Denying parents their sinful pleasure of physically and psychologically torturing their children is the first step t

 

I am completely against corporal punishment in schools as well. I don't think anyone but a parent has the right to lay a hand on a child in ANY WAY, even if it's not abusive. A parent, I believe, has the right to use non-abusive physical punishment, but I personally belive it's wrong.

Today, if a parent or any adult attacks and kills a child for any reason (even if there is no reason) then the maximum sentence does not exceed more than a couple of years.

Not true. That man who killed the little 7-year-old, Danielle Van Dam, was found guilty. The death penalty was reccomended, but if he doesn't get that, he will be spending the rest of his life in prison with no chance of parole. Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children, got a VERY severe prison term. I don't remember the exact length - it was life with chance of parole, but not for many, many years, perhaps? I'm not sure - but she has NO CHANCE of getting out until she is quite old. Now, I personally believe she was quite mentally ill, and belongs in a mental institution, but that goes to show you: The law cracks down on people that kill children.

As for your whole post, I emphetheically disagree. While the numbers of abused children are way too high, most parents do not abuse their children. The ones who do stand out, but are not the norm. I have never known an abused child in my whole life. My parents were wonderful, all the friends I had while young were treated appropriatley by their parents, and the young children I know now have loving parents. If parents did not discipline children at all, we'd have a bunch of adults running around doing whatever the hell they wanted.

The fact is, a little kid is not going to be able to know what is right and what is wrong. They have to be taught. The parents have the life experience to teach their children right from wrong in most cases. Considering the age of the parents relative to the age of their children, the parents have a HUGE chance of knowing better. Babies are not born knowing ANYTHING at all except basic instincts of crying when something is needed. Everything they ever learn, they learn from their parents, siblings, or other people older than themselves.

Children are not slaves. If they have to listen to their parents, it is because their parents are financially responsible for their care, and are also responsible for protecting them from harm. Without parents to care for them, children would starve or freeze to death. They are too young to care for themselves. Parents feed and clothe their children, provide a home for them, and heck, in most of the cases I know of, buy them far more toys than they could ever play with. If kids did whatever they wanted, and did not listen to their parents, a lot of them would end up dead. They'd run into the street and get hit by a car, or do something else incredibly dangerous.

 

There is no way that most parents should be allowed to have children, and then raise them and be allowed to dispense discipline, especially since the parents are MORE often than not either wrong themselves, too extreme, do not understand the situation at hand, or simply using their child as a proverbial punching bag.

I disagree, most parents I see usually dont give a damn. Watch the kids now days, they dont say thank you, excuse me or have any sort of manners. They instead say move, or get out of my way, and the always popular give me. I tried that from time to time as a kid and got my butt busted. Parents are not being TOO overbearing, Parents are rather doing too LITTLE.

It is absolutely desgusting that children, (who less than two hundred years ago were considered humans, but now are not) are being physically harassed and tormented by their parents/family members/other parents. Any sort of physical "discipline" is a violation of the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, article 5.

Somebody pissed in your coca puffs didnt they? Either that or youve been living on the moon. Kids have more rights today than 200 years ago, back then kids were virtual slaves, working in factories, fields, a childhood was maybe 5-7 years. Girls were sometimes married as young as 8 and bearing children as young as 10-12, as fast as their little bodies would let them. And this is better than today? Explain!

It is immature, close-minded, and naive to believe that parents always are correct and know what is right and how to discipline the children which they have spawned. (I do not say THEIR children, because that implies that the child is the property of the parent, and so may be treated that way) Granted, there are situations where the parent does know what is correct and the child is in the wrong, but considering the number of cases where this is not so, the percentage of situations where this is so is infintessimally small.

You are Mr Politically Correct arent you? Parents are the one who set the guide lines for what is right, I busted my nephews butt for trying to climb in the dryer, I guess that was closeminded of me to assume I was right and believing he could of gotten hurt. And yes it is THEIR children, just like MY mother is MY mother, she isn't my property but yet she is still MY mother, I am her blood, sweat and tears, 24 years of discipline, love, and teaching has gone into me, she brought me up, fed me, clothed me, and gave me a nice warm bed to live in. And when I have children, they will be MY children, I don't own them, but they are under MY care, and they are MY charge. By your logic Qui-Gon Jinn calling Obi-Wan Kenobi "My Padawan" means that Qui-Gon owns Obi-Wan? is that correct?

Children today are living in worse conditions than the slaves of the American south in th 1850's.

Yes, having their own rooms with a TV, nintendo, computer, video games, and state of the art equipment is really living in worse condition isn't it?

Today, if a parent or any adult attacks and kills a child for any reason (even if there is no reason) then the maximum sentence does not exceed more than a couple of years. Yet, if a child kills an adult, even if it is self-defence or when there is an extreme amount of provocation involved, then the minimum sentence is not less than a decade. Does this seem fair to You? I pity those who think that it is, and would be more than willing to dance and sing on your graves.

What? Granted children rapers, abusers and murderors are granted too much sympathy. But as Rebecca pointed out, they usually get many years in prison, and most wont make it out, their fellow inmates here what they did and boom, their dead.

IE an Air Force Sergeant was caught raping his four year old daughter by the childs mother. He went to Ft Leavenworth where his inmate found out about and made that sergeant into his girlfriend (by force) and the whole time he raped that man, he kept saying "Now you know how your daughter feels." The sergean