Disiplining children...what role should government play?

As a 'child,' the only dicsipline I am ever given is a temporary ban from the computer... But on the question of physical punishment, I agree... Take a leaf from Luke & Vader's book - never attack out of your anger...

eg. Do NOT sever your child's hand off every time you get in a mood...

 

astroblue, Take a leaf from Luke & Vader's book - never attack out of your anger...

Much wisdom Star Wars has

Wow, Shadoloo. That was radical. Rebecca191 and Jedi_Xen have already responded some of what I think. I can start with the first sentence and already disagree very much.

Until population controls are established

It is very dangerous when the state has so much control as to allow or disallow people to have children. I suppose the state will set the standards. I also suppose the state will have to enforce unauthorized pregnancies and children. Forced abortions? Forced steralizations? *shudders* The world is bad but such control is naively utopian. The only way population control would work is for educated people to decide for themselves to have children or not.

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.

If I ever decide to physically punish my children, I will gladly take the same, double, or triple the pain I inflict on them. Physical punishment is sometimes and alternative that works. I'm talking about a smack on the behind with absolutely no permanent marks. I'm not talking about abuse. Personally, I don't think I could ever do it, but I also think that parents should be allowed the option.

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

What?!?! I really wonder what kind example your parents gave you.
1) Children are considered more like human beings now than ever before. Especially girl children. But see what Jedi_Xen said.
2) I agree that it is disgusting when children get abused, harassed, and tormented by parents or family, but this doens't happen in the majority of families. The percentage that get abused is very low compared to the percentage that don't. But see what Rebecca191 said.

It is immature, close-minded, and naive to believe that parents always are correct

Parents are not always correct - not nearly so. My parents made mistakes, and so does every single parent on this planet. However, the parents know more and are responsible for their children. Therefore the children should listen to them until they can make decisions on their own. I also think parents know better than the government ever could. Just remember, everyone makes mistakes - they only become errors when you refuse to acknowledge and work on them.

and know what is right and how to discipline the children which they have spawned.

Actually the correct term is conceive. Humans do not spawn. And see what Jedi_Xen said about MY or THEIR. MY is not always a term of possession is the slavery sense.

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.

So are you saying that the kids know best in most cases? And if the parents are wrong so often, could you give some examples?

When a child makes a mistake and is not allowed to explain him/herself, then again they are punished.

In most families that I know, most children are allowed to explain themselves most of the time. Mistakes aren't necessarily punished. Punishment is an aid to help teach children right from wrong and how to behave in our society.

Denying parents their sinful pleasure of physically and psychologically torturing their children is the first step towards a global recovery.

omg ...
Torturing your children and disciplining them are two completely different things. Get your facts straight. And sinful pleasure? Sheesh. Disciplining must be really fun. I've done a goo

 

While we are on the subject, children should no longer be held accountable to parents, which is yet another great injustice and crime against humanity.

Crime against humanity? ?

And for those of you who plead the ten commandments and claim that they tell to obey one's parents, then read it again. The words are Honor thy Father and thy Mother, not obey. And for those of you who don't know, when in this context, honor means to take care of, not respect.

True, it doesn't say obey. It also doesn't say love. But respect is EXACTLY what it means. And it can be shown in many different ways, of which caring for them if they become helpless, for any reason, is only one.

 

and claim that they tell to obey one's parents, then read it again.

I was thinking more about this on my way home tonight, and realized that although it does not specifically say 'obey' parents, that is also another form of respect children are to show. Minor children, NOT adult children. Minor children are to obey their parents save two exceptions: If the demand/restiction place upon them is illegal; or if it is dangerous in a way that causes harm to themselves, others, or their parents. Basically, you obey your parents unless they are asking you do to something that is against any of the other Commandments. Otherwise, until you are capable of being autonomous, in that your parents are no longer supplying your basic needs (food, shelter, clothing) you ARE obligated to honor them by obeying them.

Curiously, this commandment is the only one of the ten that mentions a reward for following it, although most people abbreviate that part out. The full commandment translated from the Hebrew is: Honor thy mother and thy father, so that your days will be lengthened upon the land the Lord, your God, has given you. There are many interpretations of how this 'day lengthening' works and plays out, but it certainly doesn't take a genuis to realize that for young children particularly, in relation to obeying parents, this is a logical argument. If we allow 3-year olds to live their lives according to the whims of their freewill, no doubt the human race would not be where it is today. Children are incapable of understanding danger to themselves that curiosity can create, and we would have made ourselves extinct millenia ago by letting them simply not be 'accountable to their parents'. Parents are there to guide them and protect them, and discipline, including appropriate corporal discipline, is one way parents do this.

NOT owning up to this responsibility would be closer to a 'crime against humanity' than expecting children to obey rules and restrictions. In reality, it is actually a crime to let minor, especially very young, children run wild: it's called neglect. And no civilized society can be created by children who have never been held accountable to anyone for their actions. This starts with their parents.

 

I'm 16 (so no I'm not ancient either ) and if I misbehaved when i was little, I got a smack. Big deal. I grew up to be a reasonably well-behaved child and i have no mental scarring or anything... I personally think those who say it's a terrible thing to do really need to stop overexaggerating. It gets the point across and it can work so while i don't condone real violence, a whack on your butt/slap on your wrist/whatever really doesn't do any harm.

Sure, if a child is being seriously abused, get the state involved, but some discipline's really alright in the long run.

LittleJedi

 

I believe the current laws state 'reasonable chastisement' as what is allowed when disciplining a child. This is ambiguous at best. Even if it was reformed more specifically to limit discipline to the palm of a hand on the buttocks, thighs or legs (which I think most people will agree is the absolute permissable maximum), the fact is that the law would still allow violence (because that's what it is, even if it's only a slap on the butt) administered from parents to children.

Many parents - the vast, vast majority, I would say - are perfectly capable of knowing what's acceptable and correct disciplining of a child, and what's abuse. But there's always a few that will want to take it too far, and will insist that it's their 'right' as a parent (ignoring the right of said minor not to be knocked around). I think the best thing possible would be to completely ban violence between parent and child. I'm not a big fan of Government intervention in family matters, despite being a staunch leftist, but I honestly believe that the same rule should apply for all: if you wouldn't hit another adult, or wouldn't like another adult hitting your child, why should you be able to hit your child? They aren't objects, or animals, to be tamed or disciplined, but actual human beings who may have children of their own some day.

The best course of action would be for legislation banning any form of physical violence between parents and children. It might just go that little way to stamping out one of the greatest scourges, if not the greatest scourge of society: child abuse.

- TheScarletBanner.

 

Even if it was reformed more specifically to limit discipline to the palm of a hand on the buttocks, thighs or legs (which I think most people will agree is the absolute permissable maximum),

Only the hand? You'd have parents in an uproar. Physical discipline has been admistered with switches (thin tree branches), paddles, belts, etc... Many parents find them more "effective," shall we say, than just using the palm of the hand. Certainly, some have taken that too far, but you'll have a hard time convincing a lot of the American public that using a wooden paddle (like the one they had in my gradeschool for corporal punishment) qualifies as "abuse."


if you wouldn't hit another adult, or wouldn't like another adult hitting your child, why should you be able to hit your child?

I wouldn't force another adult to wash their mouth out with soap, but I think we still let parents do that to their own children. Parents have a lot more control over their children's behavior because they are parents. While you may not agree with someone's methods of raising children, you don't have a right to impose your own methods and beliefs on them, and you'll have a tough time proving that some of these punishments are "abuse" and not allowable disciplinary techniques.

 

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.

Let's pretend this happens. A social worker comes to my house on an anonymous tip and takes my child away. Later, I am cleared of all charges and I sue the pants off of the social worker. Why can I sue the pants off of the social worker? Because I was automatically assumed to be guilty because you voted for someone who, in congress, voted for bills that allowed things like that to happen.

That is declaring someone GUILTY until proven innocent.

 

I find the idea of the state telling me how to discipline my child, to the point of taking him away and charging me with a crime for slapping his hand after he reaches for the burner on the stove for the third time to be truly, horrifyingly Orwellian.

 

So you'd rather some kids end up dead or with permanent brain damage because a social worker was afraid of getting sued?

 

So you'd rather some kids end up dead or with permanent brain damage because a social worker was afraid of getting sued? /i]

No. I'd rather that the parent be treated as if he were innocent rather than already guilty of child abuse. Seriously, what kind of fool would abuse a child seriously if they were under investigation?

Half of my brain agrees with you and the other half doesn't. The logical side disagrees. My emotional side is complaining, but logic wins out.

 

What I mean to say is, that having your child taken away from you is part of your punishment if you lose. You shouldn't punish them before they have had a fair trial.

 

And if there are serious doubts about the child's safety until the trial takes place? Should the social workers just leave the child there and hope it doesn't end up dead, or in a coma?

 

I think that a social worker should only take away a child with probably cause ... and a phone call(s) from a single person is not probable cause. A phone call might be a reason to investigate, but it is not reason enough to take the children away.

There are far too many people who abuse this already. Taking a child away from his home even for a day or two can be quite traumatic. Parents should be innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, there are cases where the social worker should have paid more attention, but there are also plenty of cases where the social worker assumed too many rights and guilts without cause.

There just needs to be a balance.

 

Well, when I said "serious doubts about the child's safety," I didn't mean a single phone call. I meant a great deal of evidence that if the child remained with the possibly abusive parent until the trial, they would be in jeopardy.

 

If you take the child away, then you are saying that the parent is guilty of child abuse. INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.

 

If you take the child away, then you are saying that the parent is guilty of child abuse. INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.

I can both agree and disagree.

When it is obvious, it just hasn't been proven, then taking the child away ASAP would be one thing. But I say something less drastic, constant survelience (sp) If you let the parent know youre on to him/her that parent might take child and flee, but if he/she can't go shopping with out a private detective or undercover agent or whatever with them at all times then that wont happen.

 

If you take the child away, then you are saying that the parent is guilty of child abuse. INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.

Yeah, and it's just TOO BAD when that defenseless little kid turns up dead with his head bashed in.

If a situation is judged to have a high likelihood of being dangerous for a child, the child needs to be removed, because the child has NO DEFENSES OTHERWISE. I'm talking about OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE... such as physical injuries on the child that HAD to have been caused by another person, and could not have been accidental. Heck, it may not even BE the parent.... but the child has to be removed from the situation where the abuse is occuring until it can be found out who is guilty; it's even less fair to let the child suffer and possibly die while the long legal process goes forward. Sure, if they could take care of the legal process immediatley then don't take any kids away, but there is simply NO WAY to conclude a case in one day. And in the mean time, a child who is obviously being abused by SOMEONE should be put in a safe place.

 

Yeah, and it's just TOO BAD when that defenseless little kid turns up dead with his head bashed in.

What fool would abuse a child like that when under investigation?

Besides, why can you not accept something as simple as innocent until proven guilty?

 

Because children are so helpless, they need to be given special protection to ensure their safety. They need to be put into a place that is DEFINITLEY safe, not "maybe safe, because the parent might be innocent but then they might be guilty and we just can't know yet."

And to answer your question: The same kind of idiot with no self control who abused the child in the first place.

Sure, if they have not been found guilty yet, don't make them go to jail or whatever the punishment is. But when there are doubts, you simply cannot trust a person with the care of a COMPLETELY DEFENSELESS little child. You are so worried about the parents, but the parents are grown adults who can take care of themselves, and the children ARE NOT, and have absolutley NO WAY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES without the help of other adults!

Would anyone here leave a child with someone under investigation for abuse? I think not. So why do the children of possible abusers deserve less protection to ensure their safety then you would give to a child in your own care?

 

I am a firm believer of "Spare the rod, spoil the child," and so were my parents. If I did something wrong, they'd swat my behind, and I never did it again. I am now a well adjusted 19 year old college student.

While I do believe that Child Protective Services is a good thing (I've seen many abused kids saved by them), I think that it has been taken too far sometimes.