Should kids be spanked?

[zandiago]

As you travel to various states/countries...you'll find many people have different ways of disiplining their kids...some however, have gone overboard to the point of abuse. So do you think that it's wrong to spank kids and how far should the law of the land go in determining how much is too much??? Ought to be an interesting discussion!

[scru]

Yes.
Spare the rod and spoil the child!
Of course, any parent who beats up their children deserves to be thrown in jail.
Put the child over your lap and a few slaps from the wrist will teach him/her a lesson. You don't even have to be harsh about it. I was spanked as a child, and I can tell you I dreaded the concept of being spanked much more than I did the actual spanking.

[Ancient Dragon]

Spanking? Absolutely -- beat the living hell out of the little crumb snatchers :) But if you do that your kids will hate you for the rest of your life.

[jasimp]

Words can be just as painful as a physically punishment.

[Infarction]

Words can be just as painful as a physically punishment.

Moreso, IMO, but a good smack can get the point across quite well. Of course, abuse should not be tolerated, but I think a little physical consequence does help to train a child.

[lasher511]

People treat smacking as a fine line between abuse. It isn't. There is a distinct different between a slap on the wrist or a wack on the backside and abuse.

As a Kid we used to have a smack on the hand as a warning, and a "pants down smack " or a wooden spoon for when i really couldn't pull my head in and later on my parents introced "the rod" which was the handle of a plastic feather duster and was kept for when i was really misbehaving. An there was similar punishments in place at my school up until about year 3.

The difference between this and abuse is that i deserved it, my parents did not enjoy it and it did not do any permanent damage.

Words can be just as painful as a physically punishment.

I actually think that words can be worse and more damaging then a smack because while you quickly forget the pain from a smack you never really forget the lesson learnt. Where as you will always remeber the pain from a harsh word especially when that word comes from a loved one. I also think that it is very easy to say something that is not going to be easily forgotten.

The human mind is a much more fragile thing then the body.

[Infarction]

I actually think that words can be worse and more damaging then a smack because while you quickly forget the pain from a smack you never really forget the lesson learnt. Where as you will always remeber the pain from a harsh word especially when that word comes from a loved one. I also think that it is very easy to say something that is not going to be easily forgotten.

I think it's also a lot easer to associate pain as a consequence of an action or behavioral pattern than to associate a verbal response. Furthermore, the verbal memory tends to stay longer, whereas with a smack it's more along the lines of "if I do X, then I'll get hurt" and that's that.

[lasher511]

I think it's also a lot easer to associate pain as a consequence of an action or behavioral pattern than to associate a verbal response. Furthermore, the verbal memory tends to stay longer, whereas with a smack it's more along the lines of "if I do X, then I'll get hurt" and that's that.

Yeah exactly.

But hey who needs smacking these days when we can solve behavior issues with drugs like Ritalin. God forbid we actually let out kids be kids for a change and only punish them when its actually needed.

[madoverclocker]

well, as each child is different i believe each child needs to disiplined differently. personally, i don't believe that teaching children that violence is the solution to lifes problems will make them productive members of our society. but some children for one reason or another need to asociate bad behavior with pain, the problem is that the child doen't know why their actions are a problem. only that if they do X then they get hurt.

[lasher511]

Its not a 4 year old or younger that we are talking about smacking. Its older kids. Usually they are warned not to do something and they do it anyway. Kids are not stupid and they quite often know what they have done wrong. It has nothing to do with violence either it has to do with showing them that their are consequences when they do not do the right thing.

The fact is the best way of getting a message like that across is with a smack.

[nav33n]

If the kid's behaviour is like Dennis (the menace), then he should be punished. And when i say "he should be punished", i dont mean physical abuse. Physical abuse is bad.
And hey, fiery look and a lil yelling can be useful sometimes ! :D

[lasher511]

If the kid's behaviour is like Dennis (the menace), then he should be punished. And when i say "he should be punished", i dont mean physical abuse. Physical abuse is bad.
And hey, fiery look and a lil yelling can be useful sometimes ! :D

Yes but things like yelling are actually going to do more long term damage mentally to the child then a smack and as has already been mentioned it is not a fine line between a smack and genuine abuse there is a big difference.

[nav33n]

Yes but things like yelling are actually going to do more long term damage mentally to the child

What do you mean by long term mental damage ? I think its much easier to forget one's yelling than getting spanked.

[hollystyles]

In my opinion there is only one legitimate reason for a smack and that is when a short sharp shock is required to get a childs attention when they are so out of control they have become incoherant. It can be a very confusing time around 2 years of age when a child realises they are actually an individual and can effect the world around them, it's not suprising they require help to master themselves initially.

I don't believe smacking should ever be used as a threat or deterant. It should only ever be applied to the buttocks or legs and never the head. Smacking can never teach your child self discipline only reasoned discussion, leading by example, love and respect can do this.

Smacking should become unecessary after the toddler years, say around 4 or 5 years of age.

Just my 2 cents as a father of two.

[madoverclocker]

The fact is the best way of getting a message like that across is with a smack.

i remember as a child my father using two different methods of discipline, until i was about ten spanking and such was the preferred method. however, this never really straightened my behavior out for much longer than the pain lasted because of my short attention span. my dad must have realized this because he began sitting me down for a chat about honor and integrity whenever my actions warranted intervention. i can tell you that today those conversations are the ones that have stuck with me and guided my morality.

[hollystyles]

Aha! living proof.

Thank you madoverclocker for sharing your personal experience.

[sneekula]

In a number of cases the parents should be spanked for bringing their unruly kids to a nice restaurant, where you just sat down to enjoy a special meal.

[scru]

Has anybody ever been caned? It's funny now I think back on it...

[bobwahler]

For those old enough to know, civility has become nearly extinct over the past few generations. These are the same generations who decided that for more than 5,000 years, children had been raised WRONG; and they knew more than the entire collective experience of homo sapien.
Eliminating real punishment is only one cause of a genuine decline in civilization (we really did get along much better in the past).
And has been said, spanking is NOT the worst punishment. After an uncle refused to speak to us for about 3 days once, my cousin and I wished he would beat us instead.
The "village" DID raise the children; but they made the children conform to the community, not the other way around. Children who were taught not to touch things they weren't supposed to were FAR less likely to steal than those who had everything put out of their reach; so if they CAN touch it, they WILL touch it. With few exceptions, even the most hateful (racists, bigots and the like) taught their children to be more "civil" towards those they had no regard for than people now act towards those who "disagree" with them on nearly any topic.
So go ahead and debate spanking. Those you are so concerned about "damaging" are growing up to think nothing of killing, harming and violating anyone else.
If it really was because they were spanked, wouldn't there have been far more killing and violence back when everyone was spanked?

[briansmall]

This is one of those conversations that is perhaps asking the wrong question. Rather than asking if kids should be spanked, perhaps we should be asking if the government (other people) should be dictating the actions of the individual, in this case, dicatating how children will be raised by their parents.

[Sturm]

>If it really was because they were spanked, wouldn't there have been far more killing and violence back when everyone was spanked?

There was.

[bobwahler]

NO, there was NOT. Saying it is so does not make it so.
There is FAR more killing and violence now than in the past.

[scru]

>If it really was because they were spanked, wouldn't there have been far more killing and violence back when everyone was spanked?

There was.

If you're going to make absurd claims like that, please prove them...

[jasimp]

NO, there was NOT. Saying it is so does not make it so.
There is FAR more killing and violence now than in the past.

There is also a lot more people in this period so the ratio may actually be the same. Also the media hypes a lot of things up when before, people would not have heard about it becasue there was no large media network. Also people overlooked things more and they were not spoken about. For instance the person who wrote Alice in Wonderland was a pedophile but it no one did anything about it, they just told their kids not to go near him.

[briansmall]

There is also a lot more people in this period so the ratio may actually be the same. Also the media hypes a lot of things up when before, people would not have heard about it becasue there was no large media network. Also people overlooked things more and they were not spoken about. For instance the person who wrote Alice in Wonderland was a pedophile but it no one did anything about it, they just told their kids not to go near him.

It's certainly true that one cannot easily support data to prove one way or the other that things are really worse than they used to be insofar as crime (and general bad attitude) is concerned... but it sure feels that way.

And yes, media hype makes it seem much worse than it really is. I really do not want to hear about rape and murder (etc.) on the other coast, and all places between. If all I heard about was what was in my town, (like in the old days) it might not feel so bad.

News should be something that is "important" to the people it is being delivered to. What happens on an inter-personal social level 3000 miles away does not matter to me. But for some God-Awful reason, it "sells".

What's that all about, anyway? (I probably know, but I can't put my finger on it right now.)

[jasimp]

It sells becasue of societies morbid curiosity with those kind of events.

[briansmall]

It sells becasue of societies morbid curiosity with those kind of events.

Yes, I get that part, but why has society come to this point? I cannot say if the numbers are up on crime, but I can say with authority that societys' tastes in entertainment have changed, and imho that taste has become infatuated with the crude, vulgar, base & dark side of behavior. Interesting on the one hand, but repulsive to someone of my "sensibilities" .. it seems there are no longer many boundaries. I don't hold myself up as being "right" insofar as my attitude, people can be as they want, I simply need to adjust. But it is difficut to understand what has caused this shift in my short life. Too much going on to reduce it to a one liner.

[<1337>Me</1337>]

I guess you could hit them, but don't beat them. That doesn't teach them a lesson, because after they get hit it hurts them for a couple minutes then the little buggers are out skating again.

[<1337>Me</1337>]

So pretty much you should ground them forever. That's what Chuck Norris would do.

[bobwahler]

I was called. I RAISE.
It only takes a few minutes to educate yourself.
http://www.moralityindex.com/crime.html

Here's some DATA for you.
Crime Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants (adjusted for # of people)
2002 compared to 1960, or 2 generations ago, when essentially ALL kids got spanked, whooped, switched, knuckled, swatted, or HIT.
Total Crime Index
^ DOUBLE
Violent crime
^ TRIPLE
manslaughter
^ only 10% (but insanity was not a defense, it was a mitigating circumstance and I've got a $20 wager on the proportion of minors)
Aggravated assault
^ Two and a half times
Motor Vehicle theft
^ Two and a half times

Many statistics peak between 1980 and 1990, and since have declined. BUT:
ALL are still higher than in 1960, and most higher than 1970. Also:
In 1960 there were no alarms on ANYTHING but banks (I doubt you'd find many riot gates in NYC). Until the mid 70's, most urban cars were left unlocked at night; further suburban HOUSES were left unlocked.

And if you look at any statistics pre-1960, they will be roughly flat as far back as you care to go.

Before the mid 60's, it was "normal" for children to be punished. I DEFY ANYONE to show a SINGLE statistic that shows a greater "anti-social" behaviour of any type comparing 1960 or earlier to now.

And anyone who wants to claim that I am being "absurd" better do THEIR homework.