Corporal Punishment - right or wrong

Its lack of physical discipline that makes today’s kids so bad. Not the games they may play. Its the fact that they get in trouble for cursing at their parents or beating on other kids and they get some lame 'time out' or verbal warning. In my day you got the crap beat out of you for talking back at all. Spare the thought that you would do something as dumb as curse in mom or dad's presence.

Click to expand...

And believe me, everyone understands violence. Tell a baby no and he’ll eventually do it again, give him a nice spanking and he’ll never do it again.

Click to expand...

The above quotes (fixed for spelling) taken from a couple different threads recently are very bothersome to me. Corporal punishment IS NOT required to raise good children, and can even be detrimental. Babies memories are so short that spanking doesn’t work. I have two boys at home and NEVER use corporal punishment. There are other very effective methods (time outs, loss of toys, loss of privileges, rewards, etc.). No back-talk, cursing, hitting, etc. allowed – loss of privileges, etc.. Don’t clean up…lose what you were playing with and no new toys for a time period. Do very well, get rewards. The list goes on.

Of course I personally believe kids should know how to fight. My oldest is in martial arts and my youngest will be when he turns four. However, my oldest understands that fighting is wrong and should only be done for practice or defense. He has a healthy respect for others that has nothing to do with how much physical power they have.

i will do it if the thing they did is very very bad, like getting into fight or even worse scheming against other ppl.

It is arguable whether using physical violence for punishment purposes -- that is, hoping that the threat of pain is credible enough (and the level of pain high enough) to hope that it dissuades that person from committing a crime, is effective. I have not seen data on that.

It is not questionable, however, that using physical violence or injury for denial purposes -- that is, removing a certain physical capability required for a crime -- is effective. No murderer who was electrocuted to death ever struck again, nor has a castrated rapist ever claimed another victim.

Third option, I think.

Physcial punishment can keep kids in line, I just don't think it is a good tool. There are better methods to make a good citizen.

A'AbarachAmadan said:

The above quotes (fixed for spelling) taken from a couple different threads recently are very bothersome to me. Corporal punishment IS NOT required to raise good children, and can even be detrimental. Babies memories are so short that spanking doesn’t work. I have two boys at home and NEVER use corporal punishment. There are other very effective methods (time outs, loss of toys, loss of privileges, rewards, etc.). No back-talk, cursing, hitting, etc. allowed – loss of privileges, etc.. Don’t clean up…lose what you were playing with and no new toys for a time period. Do very well, get rewards. The list goes on.

Of course I personally believe kids should know how to fight. My oldest is in martial arts and my youngest will be when he turns four. However, my oldest understands that fighting is wrong and should only be done for practice or defense. He has a healthy respect for others that has nothing to do with how much physical power they have.

Click to expand...

It all depends on the kid not society as whole. For me when I was younger some sort of physical displine might have been effective simply because I was the kid that relized that the worst the teachers or Parents or any authority figure could have done was to ground me or give me a detention. For a kid like I was any displine you can find would be good because the kid wont listen to what you have to say otherwise. Simply put, for some kids it is necessary for others it will never be needed.

I would only use corporal punishment if a child did something realy wrong and only use it as a last resourt.

I'm obviously not an authority on the subject, but I would suggest that consistency and carrying through on threats are probably more important than mode of punishment (assuming the punishment is actually punishment).

Second option. I'd try to exercise my other options before spanking.

Its a tool not used often enough these days, IMO. However it isnt the only tool. I practice the same rule my parents did. Verbal reprimands that follow with a whipping should they be ignored. Thus reinforcing the verbal and not making it a powerless tool.

I like to think I turned out to be a good person. Growing up I got the occasional spank on the bum, don't think it did me any harm. OF course, other alternatives could have been just as effective.

The thing I don't like about it is that children then learn violence to be a viable way of dealing with problems.

Sysy do children really learn that from being spanked. You think all the movies where the good guy hurts or kills the bad guy has nothing to do with it.

Take any two families, one that does whip the kids and another that doesnt. I'd be willing to bet the kids in house one are more likely to be brats than the kids in the house that used the whip.

I agree with orpheus. The thing is it won't work for every kid. Some enjoy pain. You just have to find that thing if your good. I guess it is a matter of being a good parent.

All violence against children is wrong (even teenagers, no matter how much they deserve a thump) and should be illegal. If parents cannot punish a child without resorting to violence, they are not fit to be parents.

I see no problem with corporal punishment being used on deserving adults 'though.

Illegal to spank or whip a kid for doing something really bad after he was warned twice? Ha. You realize once a kid knows there is no consequence for his or her actions he will just do whatever he or she wants.

I've seen the "i never hit my kids" types at the dinner tables in resturants. The kids curse at their parents in public, they get whatever they want and the parents are miserable all the time. Its rediculous.

OrpheusPrime said:

Illegal to spank or whip a kid for doing something really bad after he was warned twice? Ha. You realize once a kid knows there is no consequence for his or her actions he will just do whatever he or she wants.

I've seen the "i never hit my kids" types at the dinner tables in resturants. The kids curse at their parents in public, they get whatever they want and the parents are miserable all the time. Its rediculous.

Click to expand...

Bolding is mine. I'm the "I never hit my kids type." My kids do not curse and do not get whatever they want. The point you make about no consequences is important and those parents are stupid if they don't enforce consequences. It does not have to be violence, however. A technique we used in a restaurant was literally bread and water for dinner (and then something more nutritious at home). That is far more memorable, and effective, than a spanking. It also teaches violence is not acceptable.

OrpheusPrime said:

Illegal to spank or whip a kid for doing something really bad after he was warned twice? Ha. You realize once a kid knows there is no consequence for his or her actions he will just do whatever he or she wants.

Click to expand...

You speak as if violence is the first resort and only way to punish children. Warnings are not a form of punishment.

OrpheusPrime said:

I've seen the "i never hit my kids" types at the dinner tables in resturants. The kids curse at their parents in public, they get whatever they want and the parents are miserable all the time. Its rediculous.

Click to expand...

You're talking about the "I never punish my kids" types, who are also unfit to be parents.

Just because it's the easiest way, doesn't mean it's the only way.

A'AbarachAmadan said:

The point you make about no consequences is important and those parents are stupid if they don't enforce consequences. It does not have to be violence, however.

Click to expand...

Hear hear!
Hitting your children teaches them that hitting is ok.
Empty threats teach them that they can do what ever they want, there'll be no consequences.
My policy is to only have rules that I feel strongly enough about to enforce them Every time. Be consistent, mean what you say.

I have hit my oldest on once, well slapped him on the hand. He was 18months old at the time, I had a sleeping baby on my other arm and he was about to touch something he wasn't allowed to (don't remember any more what it was), I'd told him twice no, but in hushed tones so as not to wake the baby, so off course it didn't work.
I apologized afterwards, but still years later I feel guilty about it.
I remember the look on his face, and I remeber how I felt like I'd really lost something, his faith and thrust in me at that moment.

I don't hit my partener if he does something I don't like, and to me my children are real people in the same way, I don't see why I would hit them.
Children are real people and deserve respect.
Make the effort to stop and think, talk to them, make them stop and think.
Yes, it's often harder to do than hitting, takes more effort from the parent.

With young children (at least mine) physically restricting them has been neccessary sometimes. But that doesn't mean violence. It means holding them or carrying them into a quiet room and sitting there with them (typically in front of the door to stop them escaping) till they calm down and can be talked to.

Children shouldn't be hit. Other ,ethods should be used, but not violence.
However, fi my children were yto be doing something which was imminently dangerous, or in danger of causing pain, I'd clip them around the ear.