Conference back40::soapbox

    doesn't say anything really.
    
    no.
    
    it doesn't.
    
    no.
    
    i do.

    Such laws give children a great deal more power over their parents:

    	"Ok, Mom and Dad, I'm 16 now and I want a new car."

    	"No way."

    	"Fine.  I'll go steal a few new cars, then, and YOU'LL be the
    	ones who will go on trial for what I've done.  I might get a
    	year of detention, but you'll spend thousands of dollars 
    	defending yourselves in court.  It would be cheaper to just
    	buy me the new car."

    Or...

    	"I'm going out, Mom and Dad.  See ya."

    	"Wait.  You'll break curfew.  Go to your room."

    	"Get real.  I'm 6'3" tall.  You think you can wrestle me into
    	my room?  If you're real nice about it, I'll try not to get
    	caught breaking my curfew.  If I'm mad at you, I'll make sure
    	I get caught so that YOU'LL go on trial for it.  See ya."

    Or...

    	"Son, we can't control you so we're sending you to the authorities
    	to be kept in detention."

    	"Fine.  Do you realize that you'll be PAYING for every night I'm
    	there?  And you think my allowance is too much?  Detention will
    	cost you more than a dozen trips to Europe by the time I'm done."

    	"Well, then we'll keep you here but we'll stop your allowance."

    	"You stop my allowance and I'll make sure I'm caught breaking
    	curfew so that YOU'LL go on trial for it."

    Or...

    	"Son, I see you have stolen property and drugs in your room.
    	We have no choice but to report these things to the police."

    	"Go ahead, Mom and Dad.  They'll arrest YOU for what I've done,
    	and they'll make YOU pay for putting me into detention."

    If parents can be arrested for the crimes of their kids, why on earth
    would parents alert authorities if they discover their kids are
    committing crimes (and how would they be in a position to stop the
    kids, especially if the kids are bigger and stronger?)

    They need to rethink this, IMO.

The whole thought of the government having _anything_ to with
the raising of my children scares me VERY much.

Pat

    Suzanne may very well be the great playwrite of our time.

>    I was curious about the overall opinion of folks regarding the recent
>    judgement against two Michigan parents who have been fined by the court
>    system for not controlling their child.
    
>    What does this say about Parental Rights in Discipline?
 
     Or lack of? 
    
       
>    Does this affect your opinion regarding spanking?
 
     I do not understand why you associate spanking with this recent story.
     You spank a 16 year old?
       
>    How does one control an uncontrollable child?
 
     Too late then by definition. A sentence that makes no sense.
       
>    Is it government's job to assist you with your child?
 
     I do not understand where this came from either, considering its
     relationship with the recent story.
       
>    How many of you fear reprisal from child welfare agencies for
>    disciplining your child?
    
     Do not.   
    
    
    	
    	This recent verdict appears to me as a way to try and
    	publicly humiliate people into being better parents.
    
    

    about time!

    
    
    
    .2 You could shoot them and try again. Next time teaching them values
       rather than letting them run wild preying on your neighbors.
    
    

    If your dog bites a child you are held responsible.
    
    If your child commits a crime you are responsible. You brought the
    child into the world, you taught  values to your child. You fail as 
    a parent, you incur the consequences along with your child. 
    
    By not accepting responsibility for your child's values you fail as a 
    parent. People spend more time training their house pets than their 
    children.
    

    Suzanne:
    
    If a child is really that honery and brazen in his responses to his own
    parents, perhaps you can remind the young lad that getting gang banged
    by 12 cons in a jail cell is no picnic...perhaps he'd best go to his
    room!

 My oldest son..(adopted by me).  I spent many years trying to get this
 kid to see how the real world operates.  taught him that for each action
 there is a consequence.  Made him accountable for his actions and choices.
 He could not handle any kind of authority.  Incurred approximately $100K
 in psychiatric care/hospitalization over a period of 2 years.

 Had he got in serious trouble at the age of 16 would I be held responsible?
 (thankfully he waited til after 18 to go for the serious stuff).

 There are some kids who for whatever reason are beyond their parent's ability
 to control despite their best efforts to the contrary.  That in itself is
 heartache enough.  Should they suffer even more by being held responsible for
 a kid who was beyond their control?




 Jim

    re: .8
    
    Invalid analogy.  You can kill your dog.  You can't kill your kid.
    
    In general, if I was hauled into court on this, I'd be inclined to tell
    the judge, "O.K. I'm a failure.  When do you wish to adopt the child?"
    
    Bob

    
    	RE: .9
    
    	And the kid's response?
    
    	Remember, I'm only 16 ... so the real point is "your getting
    	gang-banged by 12 cons in a jail cell is no picnic".
    

    I don't get it...

    
    	A 16-year old won't go to jail, but they could very well send
    	the parent[s] there instead.
    

    If you give kids the power to send their parents to jail for what
    THEY do, it gives kids power over their parents.
    
    If they're going to push this law, I think we'll see a lot more
    people giving up their kids for adoption between the ages of
    7 to 17 years old.
    
    It may be the only 'out' left for people with kids who refuse to be 
    controlled (and some kids do refuse, no matter what the parents do.)

    
    re conlon...
    
       I disagree with your assessment; in fact I think those scenarios
       you painted are quite far-fetched, and in fact illustrated the
       results of parents having ABDICATED their parenting
       responsibilities.  A parent shouldn't have to wait till the kid
       is 16 (or whatever) or reaches 6' 3" to start setting boundaries.
    
    re .0...
    
       The $100 fine for each parent and $1000.00 for court costs is a
       slap on the wrist, but the message is loud and clear that until 
       their children are adults (legal definition) and do not live under
       their roof, then the parents better know what's going on with the
       kids and are accountable for their actions. I caught a soundbite 
       from the parents that unless they quit the jobs there is no way 
       for them to keep track of this troublemaker. What nonsense!!
    
       Spanking/swatting, as a form if discipline, is sometimes called for. 
       Before one flames me for that let me ask you whether this society is 
       totally without common sense that parents (the by and large, not those 
       sensationalized few in abuse cases) REALLY do not know how to 
       differentiate discipline vs. abuse?
    
       Let me hazard a guess in the Detroit case... I bet you the parents
       feel so guilty because they both work and therefore do not have much
       quality time with the kid that to assuage that guilt and to mollify
       themselves they let this kid have his way, with no boundaries and
       no discipline.
    
       As my father used to say "It is easy to be a father/mother, but not
       so easy to be a parent".
    
       How about "Parenting Univ" and make attendance compulsory BEFORE the kids
       arrive :-)   (you know like going to prenatal and lamaze classes)
    

    RE: .16
    
    > A parent shouldn't have to wait till the kid is 16 (or whatever) or 
    > reaches 6' 3" to start setting boundaries.
                          
    Boundaries don't always work no matter who sets them.
    
    Personalities are not TOTALLY set by parents.  People are born with
    certain traits (different from other siblings in their own families
    at times) which cannot always be controlled by parents.
    
    > Let me hazard a guess in the Detroit case... I bet you the parents
    > feel so guilty because they both work and therefore do not have much
    > quality time with the kid that to assuage that guilt and to mollify
    > themselves they let this kid have his way, with no boundaries and
    > no discipline.
    
    These parents have three other kids who do not have problems.
    
    So are they 75% good parents and 25% bad parents, or does this KID
    hold some actual responsibility for his own actions??

    
    	It's not the kid's fault he misbehaved, it's the parents' fault.
    
    	It's not my fault I lost the airline tickets, it's Digital's
    	fault.
    
    
    	I sense a pattern here.
    

    If the kid is not responsible for his actions, then how can kids be
    tried as adults for serious crimes?
    

    
    wait a sec, shawn... holding grudges and stll sulking, are you??
    are old are you? 20-something going 12??
    
    back to you and conlon...
    
    Well, in my books, one of the boundaries is to teach that
    stealing/burglarizing is a big NO-NO and that I am bounded by 
    my parents' teaching NOT to commit either.  One simply does NOT 
    damage others' properties, cause harm or steal stuff.
    
    What we have is this kid already not being disciplined before and now
    thinks he can get away with B&E. And let me be clear: What I said does 
    not repudiate one's own accountability and responsibility. 
    
    If you have a problem dealing with this subject because the 
    perp is 16, how about the 6 yr old that tipped an infant out of his 
    crib and pummelled him almost to death recently? The baby survived 
    but is brain-damaged, almost certainly permanently according to the 
    MDs. So is the kid totally responsible or does his his mother (no 
    father, as usual) share the blame for parental negligence?
    
    A 13 yr old kid slashed my car top a few years back in MA. Not only was
    I excluded AND FORBIDDEN to attend any juvy hearings, I did not get 
    compensated for my loss. In fact my premium went up because of it. So
    what was the kid doing out there vandalizing cars at 3am???? How come 
    the parents did not know?? Are you saying again ONLY the kid is responsible?
    
    Ok, next -- following your position, then it was jessica's fault that 
    she died in that aircrash, right? No adults were accountable, right?
     
    To what extend are parents responsible then? Does it stop right after 
    giving birth??
    
    You yourselves were kids once (some remain kids today, right?). Weren't
    there times when you just had to test the limit to see how far/much you
    could get away with? You were seeking boundaries, were you not?
    
    BTW, if the other 3 sibling were OK, and the parents had indeed suggested 
    that they could not control this thug and in fact were rather afraid of him
    (as reported by SJ Mercury) then don't you think it would be the parents'
    responsibility to solve that problem before now ... I don't know, send him
    to military school or something? Why should his victimized neighbors pay 
    the price?
    

    RE: .20  

    > Well, in my books, one of the boundaries is to teach that
    > stealing/burglarizing is a big NO-NO and that I am bounded by 
    > my parents' teaching NOT to commit either.  One simply does NOT 
    > damage others' properties, cause harm or steal stuff.

    Then you hire thugs to stay with your child night and day to make
    sure that every waking moment of the kid's life is spent in law-abiding
    activities, right?  Hired thugs cost money.  How about a brain
    implant?  Instead of Big Brother, you want 'Big Father'.  

    You can't be with kids 24 hours per day to make sure they do what
    you tell them to do.  Even young kids 'go out and play'.  You can
    watch them, but if they spend 10 seconds outside of your direct
    line of vision, they can do something you don't want them to do.
    You can't control every moment of a child's life unless you raise
    children in prisons.

    > What we have is this kid already not being disciplined before and now
    > thinks he can get away with B&E. And let me be clear: What I said does 
    > not repudiate one's own accountability and responsibility. 

    The parents of this kid did not know he was committing these crimes.
    They did know that he had a messy room, but a lot of law-abiding kids
    have messy rooms in this country, too.

    > If you have a problem dealing with this subject because the 
    > perp is 16, 

    You have a problem, obviously.

    > how about the 6 yr old that tipped an infant out of his crib and 
    > pummelled him almost to death recently? The baby survived 
    > but is brain-damaged, almost certainly permanently according to the 
    > MDs. 

    If possible, this kid should be tried as an adult for attempted
    murder.  (I think they are trying to pursue this.)

    > So is the kid totally responsible or does his his mother (no 
    > father, as usual) share the blame for parental negligence?
    
    What negligence?  The kid was out playing with other kids (the
    way tens of millions of kids go out and play with other kids all
    over this country every day.)  How was the mother supposed to know
    that the kid was going to do the unthinkable crime of trying to
    kill a newborn?  Did she forget to say, "Oh, and don't kill any
    4 week old babies while you're out playing today, ok?"

    > So what was the kid doing out there vandalizing cars at 3am???? How 
    > come the parents did not know?? Are you saying again ONLY the kid is 
    > responsible?
    
    Hey, why not arrest the kid's teachers, grandparents, neighbors,
    friends, local politicians, TV producers, and everyone else in the
    world that could have influenced the child in any way?

    > Ok, next -- following your position, then it was jessica's fault that 
    > she died in that aircrash, right? No adults were accountable, right?
                                                                       
    Adults were there with her and they were in charge at the time.
    She wasn't in a plane by herself.

    > To what extend are parents responsible then? Does it stop right after 
    > giving birth??
    
    If you want to put people in jail for crimes other people committed
    without their knowledge or approval, then I'm sure I can find a reason
    to send you to jail.  :) 

    > You yourselves were kids once (some remain kids today, right?). Weren't
    > there times when you just had to test the limit to see how far/much you
    > could get away with? You were seeking boundaries, were you not?
    
    It's easy to hide things from parents.  Kids have moments every day
    when no adults can see them (such as while they're in the bathroom,
    for example.)  Other kids walk to school or take busses or go out
    with friends.  Parents can say whatever they like to kids, but the
    kids almost always have moments when they can do other things.

    >BTW, if the other 3 sibling were OK, and the parents had indeed suggested 
    >that they could not control this thug and in fact were rather afraid of him
    >(as reported by SJ Mercury) then don't you think it would be the parents'
    >responsibility to solve that problem before now ... I don't know, send him
    >to military school or something? Why should his victimized neighbors pay 
    >the price?

    The parents could have informed the authorities, but then they'd have
    had to pay for his imprisonment (which they are doing now.)  They have
    three other children - perhaps they couldn't afford it.

    They said they didn't know he was committing crimes.  They knew he was
    a troubled kid, but they kept him at home and tried to work things
    out within their family.

    Now you want the government to CONTROL what goes on inside families?
    You have more trust for the government than I do.

    Daddy pank!
    
    {slap slap}
    
    Now, go and sit on your pot!

    When my son was a baby, I read books about telling little kids that
    their *actions* were bad, not that *they* were bad kids.
    
    So I used to always say "That was a naughty thing to do" when he
    misbehaved.
    
    One day, I dropped a glass in the kitchen and it smashed all over
    the floor.  I heard this booming 2 year old voice behind me with
    the big announcement, "That was a nonny fing to do!!!"  :>
    
    (I guess he'd heard me when I said it.) :)

    My mother put me in a foster home for less than this child was doing. 
    The parent(s) are responsible for the kid's behavior, but not to the
    extent that when their child is 16 and commits a crime, they should
    pay for it.
    
    I haven't seen the details [I tend to lean towards Wanoor's position to
    a point, and then I admit Suzanne's position makes sense to a point as
    well].
    
    Can anyone enter the news article in here that has it or at least the
    pertinent points i.e.,
    
    1.  How many crimes did the son commit before the parents were judged?
    
    2.  Were the parents warned that this judgement was coming?
    
    

>     I do not understand why you associate spanking with this recent story.
>     You spank a 16 year old?
    
    No, you spank the kid before 16 so you dont' have to at 16.
    
       
me>    How does one control an uncontrollable child?
 
  wilbur>   Too late then by definition. A sentence that makes no sense.
    
    I beg to differ.  You saying there's not such thing as rehabilitation?
    
       
me>    Is it government's job to assist you with your child?
 
  wilbur>   I do not understand where this came from either, considering its
            relationship with the recent story.
    
    My experience is that when a child is declared "incorrigible" by the
    family court system, the parent can relinquish their parental rights
    and turn the child over to the foster care or juvenile hall.
    
    The other question that this invoked in my mind, was should the
    government be responsible for providing parenting training to kids with
    repetitive behavioral problems?
       
   wilbur>This recent verdict appears to me as a way to try and
    	  publicly humiliate people into being better parents.
    
    
    Possibly, but it is also a message that this country has serious
    problems with its youth.  We wink and nod in our comfortable Digital
    easy chairs [cheTONGUEek], and say all is well, all is well, but all is
    not well.  Most of us have a personal frame of reference that does not
    represent the whole of society.  Most of us have upper middleclass
    incomes which remove us from the majority of peoples from which these
    issues of violence and anger will come.
    
    Nancy

    
    I agree with Suzanne..kids should not be given this power over their
    parents.
    Some kids are just uncontrollable. We as parents sometimes fail by 
    giving our kids too much freedom, to compensate for our own bad
    childhoods, or whatever. We expect them to handle situations as we
    would, if we had 20-20 hindsight.
    
    It's very tough being a parent. Throw divorce into the equation and it
    is no picnic.
    
    John
    

    Too many issues cloud this subject too ascertain the correct solution.
    In this day and age you have to be careful about every action you take
    towards your child.  IE, will a simple display of affection be
    construed as sexual abuse, or will a smack on the butt in the grocery
    store be mistaken for physical abuse.  Some experts say that we should
    not even raise or voices to our children. I say to all parents, that at
    the time of your childs arrival, you've got the ball, so run with it.
    Dont be so concerned about what all the experts, nieghbors and
    relatives say that you deny the child his most profound need, love,
    which in my opinion is shown by just paying attention to your kids.
    Listen when they speak, discipline them when they are bad, and hug them
    for no particular reason at all. But dont just stand there .

    
    
    	It's funny the things kids remember the most. It's not the toys, or
    the new bikes, etc, it's the time you took them fishing or played on
    the swings with them at the park. 
    
    	just musing....back to our regular discussion.
    
    jim

    0
    
    What it says is, a lot of parents have abdicated their
    responsibilities either through overwork, laziness or a
    believe that children can bring up themselves.  The legal
    system has to come into it when that child becomes a problem
    and an expense to society.  I favor teaching over spanking any
    day.  I could not understand why the parents at my daughters
    Catholic high school would ground their children semester after
    semester for having bad report cards.  Why not monitor those children 
    during the semester and get them extra help if needed.  It seemed to 
    me to be like putting a child in the library alone for a week as 
    punishment for not being able to read. 
    
    Some kids mature at 16 many do not, some never make it.  Kids
    are kids and not adults, they still need guidance and teaching
    at 16.
    
    By the time children get to 16 years old, there is little a
    parent can do for a problem child except fork out for family
    therapy.  Spanking at any age does nothing except teach the child 
    that violence is a legitimate way to bend someone to your will.
    Kids learn best from example, and in that lies both the problem and 
    the solution.  Early teaching of how to manage themselves and life's 
    responsibilities and challenges is the best.  The problem is, by the 
    time society finds out that the parents have done a shoddy job and a 
    child is out of control it's too late; then, none of the above will 
    solve the problem.  The hospital my sister works for has made a fortune 
    out of treating problem teenagers, and younger.  They often find that 
    they cannot heal the child until they heal the parents.
                               

> Had he got in serious trouble at the age of 16 would I be held responsible?
> (thankfully he waited til after 18 to go for the serious stuff).


 No. You could demonstrate that you took steps to address the problems 
 with this child and you have documented proof of same. In short, you
 were trying to be a responsible parent and therefor are not negligent.

 These parents, on the other hand, had a child with prior history, and
 were issued orders by the court concerning the restrictions on the child
 the parents were to enforce (curfew being one of them).

 They failed, on many counts. They failed to enforce the court orders, they
 failed to notify the authorities when they didn't/couldn't enforce the
 court orders, they failed to take any steps to address the issue.

 The presences of weapons, stolen property, and a large pot plant in his
 bedroom is testimony to the parents indifference to the childs welfare.

 The ruling sends the message that this kind of parental neglect is not
 acceptable.

 And it's about time ...

 Doug.

great note Doug!

    
    
    .28 No, I remember the toys too... Here are my favorites from real
    young.
    
    1) The stuffed blue rabbit.
    2) Voyage to the bottom of the sea gun
    3) Close N play record player
    4) Lost N Space Robot.
    
    

    
    	RE: WANNOOR [.20]
    
    	I'm definitely not holding a grudge here ... I was pointing out
    	what I saw to be a very relevant correlation between 2 of the
    	issues that you had been discussing recently.
    
    	It's called "failure to recognize personal responsibility" or
    	"if possible, blame someone else".
    

    
    
MORALES_NA>    No, you spank the kid before 16 so you dont' have to at 16.
  
    So tell, me do you think they never spanked their child?
    If they did spank he would that prove that spanking was
    bad?
      
> I beg to differ.  You saying there's not such thing as rehabilitation?
  
    I think rehabilitation requires extreme efforts. Something this family
    did not do. 
    
>    My experience is that when a child is declared "incorrigible" by the
>    family court system, the parent can relinquish their parental rights
>    and turn the child over to the foster care or juvenile hall.
 
    Did I understand you right that you were actually put into foster care?
    I imagine it was painful. You certainly bring a special point of view
    to the topic.
    
    So were you spanked? Do you feel that a spanking would have avoided
    your experience?
       
>    problems with its youth.  We wink and nod in our comfortable Digital
>    easy chairs [cheTONGUEek], and say all is well, all is well, but all is
>    not well.  Most of us have a personal frame of reference that does not
>    represent the whole of society.  Most of us have upper middleclass
>    incomes which remove us from the majority of peoples from which these
>    issues of violence and anger will come.
    
      I've made this point before. First we can read, some can even write.
      While we have some differences we are comparatively homogenous.
    
     

    
    
    	you are correct Dennis, I do remember some of the toys too. I was
    commenting the way I did because my daughter brought back a little
    project from school (she's six btw) and it made mention of the fact
    that she and her mother would swing together at the park. It was cute.
    :)
    
    
    	jim

    I don't know about Michigan, but I do know in CO if your child in in
    foster care, you are supposed to pay the courts money to help support
    said child.  having heard NCP's in this and other files complain about
    the expense of child support, I leave it to yourselves figure how much
    the courts want for foster care. This could have made foster care
    prohibitively expensive to a family with other kids.  
    
    I don't know what the answers are.  I do know I suggested the young
    creep that decided my property was better off in his hands than mine be
    put into an intensive counseling situation, as his parents obviously
    couldn't control the kid at the age of 13, and probably hadn't been
    able to handle him for sometime before then.  I think Jail was
    counter-productive as he had already been in juvenil hall several
    times.  
    
    meg

    
    
    I'd give the kid an "intensive counseling situation"... it wouldn't last
    very long, and you can be sure he'd remember it for a long time...
    

    Doug brought out the valid points of this issue.  This was NOT a
    first time incident where the parents were caught totally unaware
    that they had a kid who was headed for trouble.
    
    The mother admitted under oath that she did not see the need to
    remind the kid that he had a 9PM curfew; they knew he was violating
    probation from the first incident in this one area alone.
    
    My sister and I shared a room; we were responsible for keeping it
    presentable, but that never stopped my mother from checking it out
    when we weren't home so she could point out areas that needed work :-)
    
    It IS difficult for good and caring parents to know what to do with
    a kid who is over the top.  Last week an 11th grade student gave his
    mother 4 (not 40) wacks with his baseball bat.  When asked why he
    told police that his parents were "too strict".  Relatives and neigh-
    bors said they thought this kid's parents were caring and loving (not
    abusive people), but this was one strong-willed boy/man who didn't
    like being told no.
    
    Still, at the preliminary hearing, there were other relatives pleading
    that he not be tried as an adult and requested that he be allowed to
    attend his mother's funeral.  One aunt said "he's just a child,
    really".
    
    BTW, this "child" stand 6'2" and if I'm any judge, probably weighs
    well over 250 lbs.
    

    >So were you spanked? Do you feel that a spanking would have avoided
    >your experience?
    
    I was in an odd circumstance.  I lived with my grandparents who did
    spank me [properly, not out of anger but to correct behavior] and I
    loved them and felt loved.  But I was only with them the school months
    out of the year.  The summer months were spent in between my two
    divorced parents where my father molested me and my mother ignored me.
    I was completely undisciplined by both.  And NOT spanked.  I always
    attributed this lack of discipline to lack of care back then, and even
    now.
    
    The foster care system was extremely helpful in my case.  I believe it
    was for two reasons;
    
    1.  They disciplined [spanked] and because of my relationship with my
    grandparents, I could receive this as loving correction, not abuse.
    
    2.  They were Christians and showed me a better way of life through
    example.  It was there that I became a  Christian.
    
    Meg, yes my father paid $100 per month for my care in the foster home. 
    It was an exorbitant amount in 1972.  He was only paying $60 per month
    to my mother/grandmother.
    
    Nancy
    

         Sounds like you were turned into a brainwashed masochist. 

    Nancy has grown up to be a very nice person and a great Mom.
    
    Let it go, Walker.

>         Sounds like you were turned into a brainwashed masochist. 


 And they say that Christians are full of hate and bigotry..

	Walker is a Christian? 

    That's too funny Ed.
    -ss

>    I don't know about Michigan, but I do know in CO if your child in in
>    foster care, you are supposed to pay the courts money to help support
>    said child.  having heard NCP's in this and other files complain about
>    the expense of child support, I leave it to yourselves figure how much
>    the courts want for foster care. This could have made foster care
>    prohibitively expensive to a family with other kids.  

FWIW, in MA a family fostering a 16-year-old would get something like $16
a day, plus a quarterly clothing allowance of $140 or so.  Of course, DSS
spends money on salaries, counseling, etc. in addition to this.  Nobody gets
rich doing foster care.

    It seems to me that when one fails to have anything of consequence to
    say, it will typically result in insult.  
    
    And I must say Suzanne, thank you very much for your words.  Of course,
    you must realize that it took 3 teams of emergency workers to
    recusitate me. :-)
    

    
    
    
    .39 > I was in an odd circumstance. 
    
    I wish you had addressed my other questions, but your odd
    'circumstance.' makes me wonder why you have grown up to take the
    position about the state being in family's lives.
    
    Your case proves that children benefit from  State intrusion, that
    they need to be protected sometimes from their own parents.
    
    There are far more cases of children getting beaten to death than
    parents defending themselves for a little slap. (Though it makes
    better coverage than children dieing these days.)
    
    Somehow, the majority of parents aren't raising predators either.
                                                                     

    .33 au contraire, dear shawn, but hey, you don't know me.
        
        Let me repeat.... that kid is NOT absolved of his
        responsibilities. He should be made to compensate for the
        damages he had done. However because he is 16 and still lives
        with his parents, who presumably haven't signed off being his
        parents yet, the parents are also responsible for negligence. 
    
    What you are implying it that parents do not own the responsibility
    to parenting. It is also quite obvious to me that perhaps you do not
    know what "to parent" means. It is way beyond conception, you know. 
    
    and Conlon, my point exactly: We do not NEED government policies, cops 
    and judges to parent our children if parents own up to their 
    responsibilities earlier on in the game. 
    
    You see however we dice and slice this discussion, it tends to focus 
    back on the parents simply because they are there first, not the child. 
    They teach, the child learns. Later on in life that may even reverse,
    but not in the formative years.
    
                         

    All 50 states have recently amended their existing legislation on
    treatment of juvenile offenders.  All 50 states have made their
    treatments of teens much harsher.  The multi-decade experiment with
    lenient treatment for non-adults, alternate 'juvenile justice'
    systems, has been deemed a failure.  This is a reaction to the
    increasingly violent criminal acts being committed by younger and
    younger offenders.  Expect to see more harsh treatment of those kids
    who break the laws.  
    
    Have parents lost control?  In far too many cases, the answer is
    obvious, and the state legislatures have been forced to respond.
    
    DougO

>    Your case proves that children benefit from  State intrusion, that
>    they need to be protected sometimes from their own parents.
    
    Well, things have changed since I was in the foster care program.  The
    quality of foster parents haven't increased over the years.  And
    furthermore, foster parents cannot properly discipline their foster
    children due to restrictions on corporal punishment.
    
    My position with the state/government involvement is that on the one
    hand they are restricting your disciplinary rights as a parent, while
    punishing you for crimes that your children commit because of loss of
    control.  
    
>    There are far more cases of children getting beaten to death than
>    parents defending themselves for a little slap. (Though it makes
>    better coverage than children dieing these days.)
    
    It seems to me that there are many cases of children being taken from 
    parents based on allegations that have not even been substantiated.  If
    your frame of reference is the media, you are correct in pointing out
    its bias.
    
    
>    Somehow, the majority of parents aren't raising predators either.
    
    I need to ask this, though it may be obvious to some, what do you mean
    by predator?
    
    Also, if there is something I missed about your previous note's
    questions, please point it out to me.  I thought you were merely asking
    me my personal experience with spanking.
    
    Nancy
                                                                     
    
    

    Furthermore, did anyone see the tv new mag show that had the mother who
    left her 12 year old daughter for 14 weeks in a house by herself
    because she married a man that her daughter didn't like?
    
    The daughter suffered through chicken pox on her own.  And finally
    after having not heard from her mother for a long period of time,
    called her stepbrother who contacted child welfare.  The girl is now in
    a foster home, but the mother is trying to get custody of her once
    again.
    
    Incredible...  this woman looks like someone we would work with. 
    Intelligent, conservative-looking, 40ish woman.  She had raised 3 or 4
    other children who have all become successful in their own lives.
    
    It was a shocker to me...

    RE.50 - 
    
         You think corporal punishment is proper discipline for a child? Go
    thump your bible, not your kids, you self-righteous sadist. 

a lot of us believe that corporal punsihment is acceptable. it has 
little or nothing to do with bible thumping. that remark was
totally uncalled for and unfair.

the matter of debate has always centered around the matter of
degree to which some parents take corporal punishment.

there is a threshold in most things when it becomes unacceptable.

    
    	well said chip.
    
    

gracias, Jim.

    
>         You think corporal punishment is proper discipline for a child? Go
>    thump your bible, not your kids, you self-righteous sadist. 


   see .42




 Jim

    
      4 children (2 boys, 2 girls) have just been arrested for
     attempted murder of their school teacher, spiking her Gatorade
     with rat poison.
    
      bb

    
    re: .52
    
    >You think corporal punishment is proper discipline for a child? Go
    >thump your bible, not your kids, you self-righteous sadist.
    
    
    Why don't you "go" get lost, you pompous bag of wind...
    
    PROPER administration of corporal punishment is the best thing a child
    can get for disciplinary problems...
    

  Poor kids..tell them to take a "time out" and get in touch with their
  feelings.



 Jim

    
    
    .50
    
    All my questions are posted. I'd rather not spend time rewriting them
    please.
    
    But if you of all people cannot see the victimization of children
    in this country and child abuse being too prevelant, but rather see 
    the parents as victims because they are afraid that spanking their children
    will be seen as beating them, then I'll just skip peacefully to another 
    topic to debate and let others debate where I fear to tread.
    
    I will make it clear that I reject corporal punishment. 

    >But if you of all people cannot see the victimization of children
    >in this country and child abuse being too prevelant, 
    
     Spanking for discipline and the victimization of children/child abuse
    are two different things. If you are incapable of differentiating
    between the two, then perhaps it is best that you do skip to a subject
    where your ability to resolve differences is not so profoundly
    impaired.

    
    
    
    Actually I can tell the difference, I don't think spanking is the
    correct tool for discipline. But I'm not calling it victimization.
    
    

    Sammy, you demented little lump of tripe. Spanking <> Sadism.

    hth

    >Actually I can tell the difference, I don't think spanking is the
    >correct tool for discipline. But I'm not calling it victimization.
    
     Well, that's different, then. Your previous entry made it sound like
    you equated the two. I personally believe that spanking has its place.
    I also believe that there is such a thing as physical abuse of
    children. There is a difference; it's one of both degree and intent.

    
    
    .64 There is sort of three topics going on here.
    
    1) Are parent responsible for childrens behavior?
    
    yes
    
    2) Is spanking an effect method of control?
    
    No
    
    3) Should government be involved in 1 or 2?
    
    	Yes in 1
    	Yes in 2 if it becomes abuse.

  >  2) Is spanking an effect method of control?
  >  
  >  No
  
 Do you have children? 

    I do, and I agre that NO on the effectiveness.  In the short term it
    may get the little snot head under control, however, in the long run, I
    have found that the kids who are hit learn parental control, but
    not self-control.  I prefer spending more time being consistant and
    having kids learn about tedious consequences to actions, than getting
    the short-term fix that a threat of a hand does, but have them learn to
    repeat the behavior when I am not around.

well, my parents had better watch out because as soon as those
spankings they gave me wear off i'm gonna be a very baaaad boy.

    
    
    .66 yes, but he doesn't count in this topic he's only 1yr.
        But I do have eyes and have observed that my nieces and nephews
    	are growing up wonderfully without spankings.
    
    	I hope to do as well.
    
    

    
    
    Listen...
    
    No-one said spankings had to be administered on a daily/hourly basis
    for disciplinary reasons...
    
     Properly handled (read: timeliness and appropriateness) can work
    wonders...
    
     If I spanked my two children half a dozen times while they were
    growing up, that was a lot...
    

    
    
    
    .70 What could it teach? Pain? Fear?  
    
    	I don't see it. 
    	To each their own I say, but I see children effectively
        being raised without it, I know I don't have to resort to hitting
    	my child.
    

    
    >.70 What could it teach? Pain? Fear?
    
    
    
    Absolutely!!! There is a correlation...

    
    
    
    .72 Now that is twisted.
    
    

    When I've had to administer a spank, it has been done swiftly as an
    attention-getter to a child who has been refusing to mind direct verbal
    admonishments.  What the child learns is to listen to daddy.  Erik is 8
    now; haven't administered such a swat since he was 5.  He learned.
    
    DougO

    .71
    
    Discipline.  Not necessary for all kids, but useful for many.

    
      I'm constantly amused by the plethora of testimonials by parents
     in the Box, in the form, "I raised my kids this way or that way,
     and all of them are paragons of virtue, bla-bla-bla."  Just once
     I'd like to view these luscious kiddies breaking all the rules
     with a hidden videocam.
    
      bb

 re .74



 There you go...



 Jim

  please don't turn this into another "hey, you meanie" topic.  there's
  already a topic for that, with 620 replies (290).

    
    re: .73  ALFSS2::WILBUR_D
    
    >.72 Now that is twisted.
    
    
    How so???
    
    
     You tell me about correlation...
    
    
     A child burns him/herself while touching a hot stove..
    
     What did they feel?? Pain?  Will they fear??
    
     I am not advocating anything except a correlation and you, my friend,
    read too much into my comment. 
    
     Does that make you that more more "twisted" for imagining more than
    was meant??
    

    Parental control is and has been diminishing for decades.  Too many
    quasi-intellectuals have had too much influence for too long.  Many of
    these people hav enever had kids and never been responsible for raising
    children, but they had the gall to write books and go on the lecture
    circuit to tell everyone else how to raise their kids.
    
    You can see it in almost every aspect of child rearing where some
    knucklehead wants to tell parents what they should and shouldn't do. 
    YOu see arrests because some parent spanked their kid in public.  You
    see a elimination of any discussion about morals and values in schools
    and then people seem to be surprised that kids are out of control.
    
    I almost never spanked my kids when they were growing up, but they all
    knew that if they went too far the likelihood of corporal punishment
    was a serious possibility.
    
    I also fell into the trap of trying to be a "modern" parent who would
    explain thing s and reason with my children.  I learned that reasoning
    and talking don't always work.  this became clear when my kids started
    to rid e thier bikes.  I was not going to "reason" with them when they
    were headed toward the street and a cart was coming that they didn't
    see.  they needed to learn that sometimes there was not going to be any
    discussion or "reasoning", sometimes they were going to do what I said
    because I said it.
    
    I also made sure that they knew what their limits were and what was
    acceptable behavior.
    

    Uh oh! I've been a bad boy!

    >  Note 730.81 by BSS::SMITH_S
    
    > -< Oooo Spank me! >-
    
    > Uh oh! I've been a bad boy!
    
    The line forms outside Mz_Debra's area. behind me.
    

>    All my questions are posted. I'd rather not spend time rewriting them
>    please.
    
    Okay.
    
>    But if you of all people cannot see the victimization of children
>    in this country and child abuse being too prevelant, but rather see 
>    the parents as victims because they are afraid that spanking their children
>    will be seen as beating them, then I'll just skip peacefully to another 
>    topic to debate and let others debate where I fear to tread.
    
    I think it is a strange world we live in today where both parents and
    children are victims [even in the same household].
    
    To state that Dr. Spock is to blame for today's parent/child
    relationship problems is too simple minded, though imo, this is part of
    the problem.
    
>    I will make it clear that I reject corporal punishment. 
    
    That is your right.  Please don't take my right away to use corporal
    punishment properly.
    

	The definition of discipline:
    
	Training intended to produce a specified character or 
	pattern of behavior.  Controlled behavior resulting from 
	such training.  A state of order based upon submission to 
	rules and authority.  Punishment intended to correct or 
	train. A set of rules or methods.  A branch of knowledge 
	or of teaching.  To train by instruction and control.

        The nearest that discription comes to spanking is "punishment 
    	intended to correct" and the "time out chair" is a much better 
    	method of training than belting your young one around the hiney.  
        Of course, the time out chair is no quick fix, it takes time and 
    	patients to administer; but, it has proven to have longer lasting 
    	results.
    
        It's not the lack of spanking that is the problem, it's the lack
        of involved parents.  That covers those who don't want to be
        involved to those who have to work so hard to keep a roof over the
    	families head that they don't have the energy to be involved.  
        
    	
    	  
    
    
    

    
    	No inflammatory language there, eh ?
    
    	I'd love to see the "proof" that you claim to have
    	regarding the time-out chair having longer lasting results.
    
    	Escalating punishment when time-out is unsuccessful does
    	not signal a lack of patience (nnttm) on the part of the
    	parents.
    
    	Karen
    

    .84
    
    Your response is indicative of the problem with children today.  You
    want to say that spanking is a horrible action taken by horrible
    people.  Truly enlightened parents will use a "time out" chair, unless
    of course, if they're too busy.  Claiming that they need to be out
    working to keep a roof over their head as an excuse.
    
    The simple facts are that spanking was a very effective form of
    discipline for decades and very few people ever had any socialogically
    damamging results.  If such was the case, every kid born before the
    advent of Dr. Spock would be a sociopath, as spanking was the norm.  Of
    course, there was a lot less truly anti-social behavior by kids back
    then, but apparently we just weren't smart enough to know it.
    
    Another example of what's wrong.  A father is facing 20 years in prison
    because he spanked his step-daughter.  He spanked her for lying and she
    got some bruises on her rearend.  the girl indicated that she was fine
    and there was no evidence of abuse.  Under Michigan law this guy is now
    facing 20 years.  There is something grossly wrong with our society
    that we will stop parents from raising their kids effectively and then
    try to institute programs to deal with kids that are out of control.
    

    .84
    
    I'd have to agree with you somewhat on your last paragraph regarding
    involved parents.
    
    I had the opportunity to offer encouragement to someone who was fearful
    of having a child in this "era".  I explained that while this "era"
    itself is alarming, that children who feel, safe, validated and loved
    will most likely bring joy.  The key is "involvement" and
    "communication", along with a consistent value system.
    
    I wouldn't trade motherhood for all the wealth in the world.  I am
    blessed by God in having two incredible kids.  :-)  But they are
    incredible kids because of the "involvement" both me and my ex have in
    their lives.  
    
    Since my kids are 9 and 13, it is still yet to be seen what they will
    become in the next few years.  But if who they are today is any
    indicator, I expect only great things.  I know there will be mistakes
    along the way, but those mistakes are necessary for maturation.  I
    don't fear them, I welcome them.  In my house there is never failure,
    only opportunities for improvement.
    
    At least in this ideal we can agree.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

good note Karen! well said and right on.

my grandson gets the time-out corner from his parents
when he's acting up. he's really good about obeying
the corner. he fusses for a while then settles down.

when that doesn't settle well he gets a little 
whallop in the end. he knows exactly where the 
line was and returns to appropriate behaviors.

this little guy knows he's loved and valued on
top of all this abuse. of this, there is no
doubt. you'd just need five minutes to watch
the interaction with his parents.

i'm not expecting to see his picture in the
post office anytime during my life.

    
        .85
    
    	What could possibly be PROOF to you?
    
    	You will scoff any studies or research.
    
    	I can present adults that dedicate their lives to helping others
    	that were never spanked. Good moral people, would that be proof?
    	Proof that you don't have to strike a child to mold them?
    
    	If the teenager in .0 was spanked as a child would that prove to 
    	you that spanking is bad?
    
    	AT the very least would that prove that spanking or the lack of has
    	nothing to do with how .0 got to where he is today. 
    
    	.0 got there because the parents didn't take time to control and
    	raise their child right, which is really what this topic is all about.
                      
        	
    
    	

    >	What could possibly be PROOF to you?
    
     What could possibly prove to you that spanking is necessary for some
    children?
    
    >	Proof that you don't have to strike a child to mold them?
    
     Kids are not all the same. What works well for one may be totally
    ineffective for another. There is no single right answer. Presuming
    that because you have an answer that works for one that it works for
    all is egotistical and just plain wrong. Parents need and deserve the
    freedom to experiment to determine the most effective means of raising
    their kids.
    
     The Doctah

    
    	re .89
    
    	I'm sorry you feel that way.  I'm hard pressed to know why
    	you think I'd be so closed minded to listening to data on
    	the subject.  
    
    	I was responding to Rosemary's assertion that 
    
        "Of course, the time out chair is no quick fix, it takes time and 
    	patients to administer; but, it has proven to have longer lasting 
    	results."
    
    	Are we to let such claims stand without question ?  Am I to
    	take Rosemary's word for it, in a note where she implies quite
        clearly that spanking is only ever used by parents who want
    	a "quick fix" and "don't want to be involved" or "don't have
    	the energy to be involved" ??
    
    	Karen
    
    

    .85> ...dedicate their lives to helping others that were never spanked.
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    "Okay people, here at Whiners Anonymous today we're gonna realign
    your 'tudes with the help of Mr. Paddle here.  Class?  Class?  CLASS?
    SHADDUP!... Thank you."
    
    Oh, that's not what you meant?  Never mind....
    Leslie

    
    
    .92 :} This notes file needs some Editors, to go back and fix these
    things.
    
    .91 I did presume.
    
    

    I only have two kids.  But they are as much different as they are
    alike.  They expect for me to treat them the same, but yet the same
    never works.  
    
    My oldest son, I can count the number of times I've spanked him.  He
    doesn't require it.  A look, reason, restrictions [aka time-outs when
    younger] are sufficient to train him.
    
    My youngest son, only responded to spankings.  A spanking in my house
    consists upon some elements required for discipline:
    
    1.  Recognition of who is the authority.
    2.  Submission to the authority.
    3.  EARNED respect for the authority.
    
    The authority's responsibilities are:
    
    1.  Not disciplining out of anger.
    2.  Wisdom [knowing when a spanking is the RIGHT discipline i.e., you
        don't spank a child for spilling a glass of koolaid.]
    3.  Unconditional love for the child.  The real sense that the spanking
        hurts yourself more than the kid.  I always heard this and now I know
        what that means.
    4.  Restoration, never leaving the child spanked/disciplined without
        affirming that their behavior has not created a wedge between you.
        (I always have my son tell me why he was disciplined, and then I
        tell him I love him and give him a hug.)  This is the most
        important part of the discipline imo.  This part is left out a lot.
        A kid needs to know that he/she is forgiven for their wrongs.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

    
    
    .91
    
    	Your requested sources and pointers to more detailed sources.
        
    	www.cei.net/~rcox/straus.htmnl
    	www.mes.umn.edu/mes/family/what.html
    	

    Question authority and the authorities. 

     >Question authority and the authorities.
    
    No need to question them, just ignore them.

Question Authority, and the Authorities will question you.

    Has anyone heard about the father (I believe from Pennsylvania) who
    could get twenty years in prison for spanking his daughter with a paint
    stirrer for stealing and lying. Bear in mind that a paint stirrer is
    one of those things that weighs a little more than a pencil, and hurts
    a lot less than a hand.    Food for thought.

    .99 
    
    I must admit I snarfing did not.  But I find it consistent with the
    basic theme of this note.  Stealing and lying is something I'd spank
    for.

    He must have done more than just spank her with it. Also, he won't get
    20 years. I'm sure that the 20 number is the max for some sort of
    assault charge.

    The last time I had a spanking, I was seven. It will be the same for my
    kids.

    In order to be prosecuted for abuse, there must be marks, and not,
    something like a red hand or thing print that fades in a few minutes. 
    If he succeeded in leaving bruises with the paint stirrer, then this was
    more than a couple of swats.  

    >In order to be prosecuted for abuse, there must be marks, and not,
    >something like a red hand or thing print that fades in a few minutes. 
    
     You happen to be dead wrong about this. There is no 'physical signs of
    injury' requirement for prosecution, especially if there are witnesses.

    
    
    
    .103 Very strange since corporal punishment is legal in all fifty
         states, against children that is. You can't hit your wife or employees
         anymore.
    
         Corporal punishment is defined by striking to cause pain without
         causing damage.

    If spanking kids is a useful tool to learning then it would follow that
    the next time a Digital project goes over budget or misses a deadline
    that Personnel should take the group out pull down their little Levi's
    and give them a mass spanking in public.
    
    Think about it!
    
    Every time a research scientist failed to find a cure for AIDS, take 
    them out and give them a beating.
    
    Do you think that would achieve anything?
    
    Children need to be taught not put in fear of pain every time they make
    a mistake.  Inflicting pain only teaches them the power of pain it 
    doesn't teach them self control or morality.  If that were the case
    then every abused child would be a model citizen. 

-1 are you serious with that analogy?

    .105
    
    You don't have a clue, which probably makes it best that you don't use
    spanking as a discipline.

    

    	egad ::gaskell, yer so far off the mark I doubt you can even see it
    from there!!

    	Children think and react differently than adults do and they
    require different methods of discipline. What works for a child will
    not necessarily work for an adult and vice versa.
    
    	Your comment about abused children being models of society goes to
    show how far you've twisted this discussion. Try reading for
    comprehension. 

    jim

>    Children think and react differently than adults do and they
>    require different methods of discipline. What works for a child will
>    not necessarily work for an adult and vice versa.
    
    Am I the only one that remember what it was like being a child?
    
    
    I see a lot of talk how good corporal punishment is. I have given
    pointer to research showing to opposite. Time to put aside your
    stories and justifications, recognizing them as such and please point 
    me to documented research that shows me that it's good.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    	

    I am the wonderful, loving, caring, articulate and wise person that I
    am today as a result of proper discipline [spankings].
    
    Anyone else?

   >  Anyone else?
    
    I'm busy right now.  I may have time to spank you tomorrow.

    me too, but my reading comprehension ain't so good.

well i haven't murdered raped or robbed anyone. never
spent time recovering from any substance abuse.

wait, wait... i was divorced once. many, many years ago.

now i'm sure of it. the regular spankings were the cause.
how could i have been so blind all these years.

question... wouldn't a study researching "reasoning"
with children and its long term effects have done
some comparative analysis? 

if not, that study would mean, ummmmmm, not a lot 
other than it's either effective or not. it certainly
wouldn't provide enough data to make one's choice on
unless the results were 100% airtight/waterproof,
wonderfully miraculous.

>question... wouldn't a study researching "reasoning"
>with children and its long term effects have done
>some comparative analysis? 

Very interesting question (seriously).  If I didn't have a million other
things to do, it'd be an interesting bit of research to see if any such
studies have been done, and if so, what the results are.

    >SMURF::WALTERS
    
    Who are you?    
    

    only the funniest man in america!

  The Shadow knows.

    I think you missed the word "looking" out of that last one, Oph.

    I have to admit, I just about spit my coffee on the screen when I read
    his remark. :-) :-)  or her remark.  I don't have a first name or is
    Walter a first name?  er, uhm, me exiting before I stick my foot in
    even further.

    
    	His remark.  Colin is a male, or so he tells us.
    

    
    	When-a Colin is-a here-a, there is-a no mercia.
    

  .123

   oh duh.  thank you. ;>  i go fix.

  only the funniest man looking in america.

    
    
    
    .111  IF your wrong. You show me that your not untouched by corporal
    punishment, because you use it with your children.
    
    You would probably make a poor case study either for or against
    corporal punishment. You were not spanked by your parents.
     

                                                        
    
    
    .114 Oh come on! There is a whole-web-world out there you can find any
    	 point of view you want (Show me something of substance).
    
    	 The pointers I've given .95 (I think) have the references to 
    	 the questions you have.
    
         You should be able to prove (at least show documentation)
    	 that corporal punishment is good.
    
         I want better for my child than "It was good enough for me."
    
    	

  Does the side with the most documents win?

    .125
    
    Nit alert:  the proper word is "you're", not your.
    
    You need to borrow someone's Runco Apostrophe inserter...  8^)

    .126
    
    Actually, the sources that you cite do not really provide much
    more that the kind of opinions expressed in this note.  This is to be
    expected, as any "definitive" study on punishing children would be
    unethical to most modern psychologists.  Controversy still rages over
    the ethics of early experiments in learning made by Watson, where
    Watson associated negative reinforcement with an animal (a rat) to
    invoke a fear response in an infant.
    
    Most of the information published on spanking is therefore based on
    general understandings of animal learning theory (where ethics are
    less of a problem), extrapolations from other studies of human learning
    and reasoning, comparative and intracultural studies, etc, etc.
    
    You have to take a long hard look at these studies before you could
    term any of then to be definitive.  For example, comparing juvenile
    delinquency rates between the UK and Sweden based on the anti-spanking
    laws found in Sweden would give the impression that the absence of
    spanking does contribute to fewer juvenile behavioural problems in
    later life.  However, few such studies take into account all the other
    variables that might influence the differences in delinquency rates.
    
    
As far as "punishment" goes, most of the data does strongly support the
    general claim that positive reinforcement is more effective and last
    longer (better learning) than negative reinforcement.  However, there
    are some studies that show that very powerfu "one trial" learning IS
    possible from negative reinforcers.  I wonder if spanking could be
    exhibiting the same powerful mechanism.
    
    Colin
    
    

    
    
    
    .128 Thank you. I'll try to be more careful.
    

    
    	
>                    <<< Note 730.110 by ALFSS2::WILBUR_D >>>
>                          -< I think your misguided. >-
    
    	And I think you're naive. There, feel better?
    
>    Am I the only one that remember what it was like being a child?
    
    	No, you THINK you're the only one who knows what is best for
    EVERYONE'S child.
    
    re: research
    
    	I'll see what I can find, but I seriously doubt whatever I put in
    front of you would change your mind. The fact that many of us and our
    parents were spanked as children and turned out ok doesn't seem to
    phase you, so why should a study or two?  You have your opinion and
    you're going to stick with it no matter what someone says. The tone of
    your notes says that much. 
    
    jim

    
    
    .127 Actually I do not believe there is any research that shows
    	 corporal punishment has value. Maybe you can find something.
    
    

>    .127 Actually I do not believe there is any research that shows
>    	 corporal punishment has value. Maybe you can find something.

    I don't need to dig up someone's research to tell me what's obvious.
    Let's assume for a moment that there isn't a single research paper
    in existence that shows that corporal punishment has value.  Does that
    mean it doesn't?      
    

>    	No, you THINK you're the only one who knows what is best for
>    EVERYONE'S child.
 
    
    	They probably said this about employees and wives before
    	corporal punishment was made illegal.
    
    	Tell me, should infants be punished with corporal punishment?
    	Should infants be protect from corporal punishment?
    
    	What age should corporal punishment end?
    

>    	I'll see what I can find, but I seriously doubt whatever I put in
>    front of you would change your mind. 
    
    I doubt my pointers have changed your mind also.
    
 >   The fact that many of us and our parents were spanked as children 
 >   and turned out ok doesn't seem to phase you, so why should a study or two?
    
    
    You could try and be honest, I could show you people that have turned
    out fine that were never spanked and it would not phase you either.
    
    >You have your opinion and you're going to stick with it no matter what 
    >someone says. The tone of your notes says that much. 
    
    I'm trying simply to raise the standard of debate here above
    "I'm ok and I got the stuffing beaten out of me." :)

    
    
    
    .133 To me, yes. If I can't gnaw on it's skull it doesn't exist.
    
     

.129:

All good points on the ethics of the research.  This does not, however,
stop people from attempting to study the problem in different ways. 
Researchers can get quite crafty in their experimental design.

    
    
    	
>                    <<< Note 730.134 by ALFSS2::WILBUR_D >>>
    
    
>    	They probably said this about employees and wives before
>    	corporal punishment was made illegal.
    
    	Yah, ok. 
    
>    	Tell me, should infants be punished with corporal punishment?
>    	Should infants be protect from corporal punishment?
>      	What age should corporal punishment end?
    
    	{sigh} *I* don't believe an infant should be punished with corporal
    punishment because the infant does not have the capacity to understand
    the punishment yet. At what age the child is old enough to warrant
    corporal punishment is up to the parents to decide. Each child is
    different. At what age it should end also needs to be decided on an
    individual basis. Whoa, what am I saying here? All kids can't be
    treated the same? What works for one may not work for the other? How
    can this be???
    
>    You could try and be honest, I could show you people that have turned
>    out fine that were never spanked and it would not phase you either.
    
        I have been honest. If you would take the time out to read back a
    bit, you will find that I do not advocate corporal punishment as the
    *only* way to successfully discipline a child. But, you haven't
    bothered to keep up with this string so why should I bother to explain
    myself once again? 
    
>    I'm trying simply to raise the standard of debate here above
>    "I'm ok and I got the stuffing beaten out of me." :)
    
    	Boloney. Nobody here is talking about "gettting the stuffing
    beaten" out of them. Simple spankings (with my children it was one
    swat on the butt to get their attention) are not beating the stuffing
    out of your children by any stretch of the imagination.
    
    	Child abuse is child abuse, spanking is spanking. They are two
    different things. 
    
    jim
    	
       

    
    I was spanked as a child. Look at me now. explains quite a bit I would
    say.

    
    
    
    .137
    
    
    You didn't answer my question, should infants be protected against
    corporal punishment.
    
    and...
    
    You missed my smiley...I was simply prodding you. I guess I shouldn't
    have because you missed the real point of the sentence.
                                                          
    

    
    
    	
>                    <<< Note 730.139 by ALFSS2::WILBUR_D >>>

  >    You didn't answer my question, should infants be protected against
>   corporal punishment.
    
    	Sorry about that. No, I do not believe infants need to be protected
    against corporal punishment. Unless the child's life/health is in
    serious jeaporday, I don't think anyone has the right to step in. I
    don't believe that kind of punishment is appropriate for an infant,
    however.
    
>    You missed my smiley...I was simply prodding you. I guess I shouldn't
>    have because you missed the real point of the sentence.
    
    	I saw the smiley, I guess I just wasn't in the mood to be prodded.
    What was your point?
    
    jim 

    .138
    
    That's why you go to vending machines for food Mark.  You associate
    food providers with pain and suffering and therefore prefer to interact
    with a machine.  Seek help.
    
    

    Stay away from the givers of pain and delight.

    
    .140 let me replay with a different tone.
    
   >>You have your opinion and you're going to stick with it no matter what 
   > >someone says. The tone of your notes says that much. 
    
   >I'm trying simply to raise the standard of debate here above,
    "I'm ok and I got spanked."
    
    
    I'm looking for research that says corporal punishment does more good
    than harm. Something of substance and value to your arguement.
    
    

    
    .140
    
>    	Sorry about that. No, I do not believe infants need to be protected
>    against corporal punishment. Unless the child's life/health is in
>    serious jeaporday, I don't think anyone has the right to step in. I
>    don't believe that kind of punishment is appropriate for an infant,
>    however.
    
     I think I read that 22 percent use corporal punishment on infants.
     So unless it causes damage your view is anything goes, I mean not
     you personally but what other people do to their infants is their
     own business.  You must be in the majority because there is no law
     against it. I didn't even know anyone hit infants (besides abusers)
     before last week, before looking up references.
    	

    
    What in the world could an INFANT possibly do that would need
    correcting to that extent?
    
    I mean, basically all they do is eat, cry, and poop, right?
    

    
    
    	Infant is any child under 1yr old. If they consider any kind of
    physical contact to be corporal punishment (a small slap on the back of
    the hand for repeatedly touching something, etc), then I'm sure you
    could lump a lot of folks into this catagory. 
    
    

    
    
    .146 It would have to be a slap that caused pain.
    	 That would be corporal punishment. 
    	                                            
    	>    could lump a lot of folks into this catagory.
    
    	Sake of clarity, could you be lumped then?
    
    

    
    
    	
>    	Sake of clarity, could you be lumped then?
    
    	Yup. I remember my 1yr old daughter trying to get ornaments and
    nicknacks off of low places. We would tell her it was bad to touch
    those and after three or four times of pulling her away she would get a
    small slap on the back of the hand (just enough to sting a bit, but not
    even enough to leave a red mark). People were always telling us how
    they were amazed we could leave our decorations around the room without
    having her destroy them. Hmmmm....
    
    jim

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 05:14:55 GMT 
From: ([email protected]) 

I Was a Classic non spanker and then learned
that our children were going downhill fast

After reading this discussion, I have found the various sides of
the issue to be fascinating. We have three girls, 13,10,8 and a boy
6. My wife and I were classic soap box non spankers. We thought
it was wrong but have changed our tune drastically. Several
years ago, our now 13 and ten year old were rude and very
disrespectful of everyone - teachers, parents, whatever. They did
not respond to timeouts, privelege taking, or other forms of
politically correct punishments. At the office one day, I was
becoming very concerned about our situation and my boss heard
me talking to a psychologist about setting up an appointment for
our kids. He suggested to me that instead of that, try spanking.
My wife and I talked about it and we were at our wits end. A few
days later, our 13 year old, then 8 was extrmely disrespectful. We
talked about timeout and she laughed. I took her upstairs, and
spanked her with a paddle. She didn't respond so several weeks
later, I was preparing for the third spanking. A friend of ours had
suggested bare bottom spanking. I picked a switch out of the yard
and took her upstairs. She took off her jeans and panties and I
used the switch on her legs and bottom. Believe me, this
corrected the problem. At the same time our ten year old, then
five was giving us similar problems. We used the same technique
on her. It's been over a year since our 13 year old has been
switched and our ten year old has been switched only twice in the
last year. The 8 year old hadn't been spanked in a couple of years
and our 6 year old has just received one spanking in his life. Our
kids understand that if they commit a spankable offense, which
has to be serious because we can now use other forms of
punishment when the crime is not as bad, the switch will come
out. Privacy is always used and the spanking is always done in
their rooms. Unfortunately, switchings are not effective through
clothes so therefore the jeans and underwear have to come off.
Our kids do not enjoy having to strip for a spanking and knowing
that they have to undress is a deterrent. Our kids are wonderful
and now, we seldom have to punish. Usually, other forms work
and our kids know when they are approaching the point of no
return. And this applies to the six year old too. I would love to
read responses and feelings about this. It sure worked for us and
our kids.



http://www.parentsplace.com/

Please send us comments
Copyright � 1995 by ParentsPlace.com
Last modified: June 11, 1995 

    When my son was 2 years old, I was able to get a great discount on
    a wonderful stereo system.  It took me (and the delivery people) hours
    to set it up and get it to sound right.  It was wonderful!!

    It was also placed exactly at my son's waist height (which meant
    he could wake up in the morning and wreck it if he had wanted to
    do so.)

    He never touched it.  Not once.  After all the time he spent watching
    us make it work right, he didn't want to mess with it.

    Other kids would come over and make a beeline for it.  I almost had
    to dive in front of the stereo to keep other little hands away.
    My son wouldn't go near it.  He looked at it sometimes, but didn't
    touch.

    I never even had to ask him not to touch this stuff, either (much less
    spank him.)  He just knew it wouldn't be a good thing to mess with it.

    
    
    	That's great susanne, but not all kids are the same. I have to use
    different methods to discipline my son and daughter, even tho' my wife
    and I have raised them in the same home with the same values. 
    
    	What works for you may not work for others. 
    
    jim
    

    http://www.kosone.com/people/ocrt/spanking.htm
    
    The Case for Corporal Punishment
    
    It is normally our policy to include both or all sides of an issue, and
    let the reader make up their mind on the matter. However, we abstain
    this time for moral reasons. The authors feel that beating children is
    so abhorrent and unjustifiable that they cannot include material that
    might serve to encourage the practice. 
    
    

    
    
    Show Topic 'SPANKING YOUR KIDS' 
    
    Generates over 50,000 calls on JANE HAWTIN LIVE! 
    
    "Spanking Your Kids" was the topic discussed today, January 31, 1996,
    on Jane Hawtin Live! The controversial theme struck a strong chord with
    viewers as the number of calls generated totaled 50,648. Jane's guests
    on the show were Kari Simpson from the Citizen's Research Institute
    (pro spanking) and child psychologist Dr. David Day (against). 
    
    

Comments on a Study of Corporal Punishment

by Doug Martin

The use of corporal punishment has been widely debated in
both homes and in schools. Many believe it to be a
traditional, trusted means of discipline while others go so far
as to call it abuse, seeing no place for it at all. Terry L. Rose
(1984) of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
conducted research through a survey of principals in all
sections of the United States. Answers to questions
concerning the manner and frequency of punishment were
analyzed while taking into account demographic, procedural ,
and opinion variables. This paper will discuss the details and
findings of this research as well as the debate over corporal
punishment along with its pertinence to schools.

Rose begins the article by acknowledging the presence of
controversy about corporal punishment. Next, the author
cites Supreme Court decisions upholding corporal
punishment and the call for a return to basics in education as
cause for the debate. A brief description of both sides of the
argument is also given. The purpose of the research , Rose
says, is to describe the reported use of corporal punishment in
American public schools. Rose then presents the methods and
results of the study.

For the selection of respondents, two states were selected
from each of the nine U.S. census districts. Ten school
districts in the eighteen states were chosen from which 103
were considered usable. Principals from 324 schools received
a survey out of which 232 returned usable information.
Those whose gender could not be deduced from names were
rejected from analysis. Twenty-two questions were asked
concerning respondents' use of corporal punishment.
Questions were answered by selections of three or more
choices or requiring a yes or no answer except for one which
could not be predicted. Results were divided into four
categories: general results, demographics,
administrative/procedural, and administrative opinion.

Results were detailed for each question individually then
conclusions were drawn and put together in discussion.
Corporal punishment was found to be administered in every
region, in communities of all sizes and at all grade levels. The
majority of principals of either sex used corporal punishment
and applied it in a private setting along with a witness from
the instructional staff. A variety of behaviors, mostly violence
toward people or property, resulted in corporal punishment
ranging from tardiness to fighting. Rose cited two guidelines
for effective use of punishment from studies of subhuman
species: consistent and immediate application. Consistent use
of corporal punishment each time a target behavior occurs
was found difficult to show because of vague descriptions of
those behaviors. The requirement for immediate application
was concluded to be unfulfilled due to the evidence of delays
from moving students from one place to another for
punishment.

Two conclusions from administrative/procedural results
expressed the delivery of corporal punishment by someone
who is not angry at the time and application in a private
setting. Rose also found that some of the principals did not
think corporal punishment was effective on certain behaviors
in specific students and that it was used less frequently with
female students. Even with all these conclusions, Rose
suggests more research is needed to disprove or verify the
effectiveness of corporal punishment.

The author makes some good points before presenting results
and makes sound conclusions afterwards. One of the best
aspects of the report is that the author did not write it to
argue a certain viewpoint but rather to focus on the object of
the research. This brought out questions for the reader to
contemplate for himself. There is certainly no question of the
author's scholarship considering the extensive list of
references used.

Before getting to the research , the author makes the
excellent point that most opinions, professional and public,
come from folklore and experience rather than evidence
through scientific research. Whether it is a parent raising a
child or a teacher in a classroom, it takes years for the parent
to know what works in disciplining that child or for that
teacher to learn enough about students to command control
in the control.

As for the research results, the first conclusion I agree with
concerns using corporal punishment in privacy at school by
someone who is not upset at the time. Punishment of a
student in front of everyone else is quite humiliating and the
punishment itself provides enough humiliation. Delivery of
the punishment by an administrator rather than a possibly
angered teacher reduces the chance of punishment turning
into abuse. Having a witness serves in that capacity as well.
As the author says, it is encouraging to know most principals
respect student privacy by administering punishment in this
manner.

Near the end of the article the author suggests that teachers
need to document how effective or efficient all disciplinary
procedures are and do so in cooperation with the parents.
They should be able to gather information on how different
procedures affect different behaviors. It makes sense that the
more a teacher studies this type of data the better that
teacher will become at deciding what is best for maintaining
control of individual students and of the classroom as a
whole.

About corporal punishment in general, whether in school or
elsewhere, I would have to say it is a tried and true method of
discipline, especially for younger children. While looking for
information on the subject, I was disappointed to find that
nearly every article and essay condemned it. In all fairness,
there are other ways to discipline for certain undesired
behaviors. However, when it comes down to a situation of
outright defiance, the best thing for that child is a good
spanking administered with love, patience and understanding.

There are those who would label any advocate of corporal
punishment among the child abusers of the world. One
article opposing this form of discipline cited a doctor who
blamed corporal punishment for cases of students needing
treatment for broken arms, nerve and muscle damage, and
cerebral hemorrhage (Black, 1994, p. 47). Anyone with the
least shred of common sense can see that these are clearly
cases of child abuse and have nothing to do with proper
corporal punishment. Along with the physical danger, many
opponents claim it causes psychological and emotional
damage. Psychologist Dr. James Dobson points out that
improper punishment aimed at harming the child can be
damaging but discipline directed at the unwanted behavior
causes the child to accept the discipline. He also say that
�when authorities talk about the emotional dangers, they fail
to discriminate between these two important approaches�
(Dobson, 1970, p.36). Unfortunately , some parents and
educators forget that love and understanding must be applied
along with corporal punishment or any type of discipline. It
must be remembered that discipline and love are not
opposites but that one is a function of the other (Dobson
,1970, p. 29). In other words, corporal punishment must
involve letting the child know what has been done wrong and
why the punishment is necessary, not just beating the child in
hopes that he will understand. Dr. Dobson comes to these
conclusions not through empirical research but through years
of experience as a teacher and parent.

Finally, when looking back at the words of King Solomon in
the book of Proverbs, we find that he was not such a bad
psychologist himself. In Proverbs 13:24 he says, �He who
spareth his rod hateth his son, but he who loveth him is
chasteneth him betimes.� All those years ago, Solomon
knew that defiance and disobedience were in a child's nature
and that a good spanking would drive it out of him (Prov.
22:15). In Proverbs 23:13 we are informed that proper
corporal punishment will not harm a child or cause him to
die. Also, how often do we see evidence of Solomon's
warning that a child left to himself, undisciplined, will
disgrace his mother?

To conclude, I strongly believe corporal punishment has an
important place in the home as well as in schools. The results
from Rose's study showing nearly 75% of the administrators
polled are using corporal punishment makes a strong case in
favor of it. The main problem today is this type of
punishment often does not start at home which makes for
extreme difficulty in maintaining its effectiveness in schools,
some of which have held on to this and similar values that
the United States started out with.

REFERENCES

Black, S. (1994, April). Throw away the hickory stick.
Executive Educator, pp. 44-47.

Dobson, J. (1970). Dare to Discipline. Wheaton: Tyndale
House Publishing.

Holy Bible, KJV (1968). National Publishing Company.

Rose, T.L. (1984). Current uses of corporal punishment in
American public school. Journal of Educational Psychology,
76, 427-441.

    .154  Good article!

Chapter 13

Will Corporal Punishment Deter?



MANY CLASSIC EXPERIMENTS on the effects of
corporal punishment on dogs, monkeys, pigeons and humans
have been conducted in psychology laboratories. 

 The gate is opened and the rat dashes along a metal
 grid. It grabs the food that has been placed at the end of
 the runway and nibbles it joyfully. Suddenly the rat
 drops the food, squeals, and springs up in the air,
 dancing around the edge of the grid as though on hot
 bricks. 

 The experimenter has electrified the grid, giving the rat
 quite a shock. 

 After a few seconds the shock goes off. The rat sits
 apprehensively in a corner. 

 In a couple of minutes the experimenter again drops
 food into the cage. The rat immediately dashes forward
 and begins to consume it. Again it squeals, drops the
 food and dances around, clearly in pain. 

 The shock goes off. The experimenter repeats the whole
 pro- 

 cedure again and again. The same thing happens. The
 rat goes for 

 the food, but drops it when shocked. 

 Then at about the fifth "trial," as it is called, the rat
 runs toward the food, but withdraws as soon as it gets
 near it. After a few times at this, the rat no longer runs
 toward the food. 

 Acute corporal punishment has successfully eliminated
 the temptation to eat food. 

Corporal Punishment Works 

In a number of similar experiments corporal punishment has
been so successful that some animals have starved themselves
to death rather than eat the forbidden food. Most studies
conducted by psychologists in their laboraties use electric
shock when they wish to administer acute pain to their
animal subjects. 

It is also of interest that the few laboratory studies of the
deterrent effects of isolation (that is, the laboratory analogue
of prison) have produced much more inconclusive results
than have those using corporal punishment. There is little
doubt that, in the experimental conditions of the laboratory,
acute pain is a very efficient and lasting suppressor of
unwanted behavior, both of the person punished (individual
deterrence) and of the person watching the punishment
(general deterrence).(1) 

This is an amazing observation when one considers that the
predominant scientific opinion as to whether it is possible to
rehabilitate off enders (that is, do something to them to stop
them from committing again) is that nothing works.(2) 

Why is this? It is because those who have reviewed the
research on punishment as a deterrent have been biased. 

The Three Biases of Deterrence Research 

1. Researchers have used a different set of standards for
evaluating corporal punishment as against prison. 

2. They have conveniently overlooked all the research on
corporal punishment conducted in the psychology laboratory,
and, while this research does not have direct application to
humans, it nevertheless is an important guide, just as
research on the cancerous effects of drugs on animals is
considered an important guide. 

3. When researchers have recognized the laboratory research
on the effectiveness of punishment, they have ignored the
fact that almost all this research has used corporal
punishment. 

The prestigious research group for the National Research
Council, to which we have referred many times throughout
this book, is guilty of these biases. Presenting itself as
"scientific" it made no attempt to review any of the
experimental research on physical punishment. 

Only two substantial studies on corporal punishment in
criminal justice have been conducted. They were conducted
in Delaware and in England roughly forty years ago. 

The Delaware study was conducted by Professor Robert
Caldwell in 1947, and published in his interesting book Red
Hannah: Delaware's Whipping Post.(3) Delaware was the
last state in the United States to abolish whipping as a
criminal punishment. (Abolition did not occur until 1972,
although its use had been rare for some two decades
previous). 

Professor Caldwell compared the rate of recommittal of (1)
those criminals sentenced to whipping and who were not
whipped, with (2) those criminals who were sentenced to
whipping and who were whipped. 

However, the law was that whipping should always be
coupled with a prison term, so that it is clear from the outset
that we cannot hope to separate out the effects of whipping
from the effects of prison. Indeed, the combined effects of
prison and whipping might produce consequences quite
different from each punishment when used separately. 

But the most important criticism is that we do not know
what were the reasons for selecting out those who were
whipped as against those who were not. As we will see, those
who were whipped were the more hardened criminals. This
would bias the groups in such a way that we would expect a
higher recommittal rate for the whipped group than for the
unwhipped group. 

Yet on the basis of these findings, Caldwell concluded that
whipping should be abolished. 

The British research into whipping displayed a similar bias. 

The report of the Committee on Corporal Punishment was
published by the Home Office in March 1938. It's conclusion
was: 

 We are not satisfied that corporal punishment has that
 exceptionally effective influence as a deterrent which is
 usually claimed for it by those who advocate its use as a
 penalty...(4) 

As laudable, thorough, and apparently unbiased as the report
of that Committee appears on first reading, it did in fact
begin with a conclusion: that corporal punishment should be
abolished. And it proceeded to collect as much evidence as
possible to support this conclusion. 

The report began by flatly rejecting any defense of corporal
punishment on the grounds of retribution, a philosophy, it
said, which "did not fit in with the enlightened treatment
philosophy." Today, we know that this treatment philosophy
has not produced the results its advocates expected. 

The Committee was confronted with some good arguments.
For example, some witnesses complained that merely to give
a juvenile probation for an offense which might have
included very substantial damage to property and even to life
and limb did not seem just, or at least failed to fit the
punishment with the crime. Yet the committee dismissed this
evidence on the grounds that it could not allow criminal
justice to be "dominated by these few exceptions," and that it
was by its deterrent value that corporal punishment should
be judged. 

The Committee set as its task to discover whether corporal
punishment had deterred crime in England and Wales, and
its conclusion was, predictably, that it could not be shown to
have done so, and therefore should be abolished.(5) 

The Committee made no effort whatsoever to investigate the
comparative effects of long prison terms on crime rates, yet
made the forthright conclusion that: 

 We have found no evidence that ... long sentences of
 imprisonment or penal servitude are so ineffective as
 deterrents that it is essential to add some further penalty
 for the protection of society... (6) 

That further penalty was, of course, corporal punishment.
The Committee never considered seriously the possibility of
using corporal punishment in and of its own without prison,
except in the case of juveniles (for whom it also rejected it
because it was not in line with the treatment philosophy). All
of the data on which it based its conclusions were data in
which corporal punishment had been administered in
addition to a prison term, so that it was never possible to
separate the effects of the two. 

A quick look at some of the games the Committee played will
suffice to show how biased was the treatment or the research
material. 

1. A number of witnesses argued that, from their
considerable experience, very few offenders were reconvicted
for an offense for which they had been flogged. The
Committee dismissed this evidence on the grounds that they
found only two or three instances in which offenders were
re-flogged. 

2. The Garotters Act was introduced in 1863 in response to a
serious increase in robbery in which the victim was strangled.
The act required flogging as an additional penalty for this
crime. There was a substantial decrease in the number of
these crimes immediately after the Act-from 60 in 1863 to 43
in 1864.(7) The Committee insisted that, because the
decrease occurred in the few months just before the act was
passed, flogging could not possibly have deterred this crime.
But we know that deterrence works by way of threat, and so
the early decrease may just as easily be explained by the
threat of flogging that would occur in advance of the act
being passed. This is not to say that this is the only true
interpretation, but it does point out that the Committee made
the interpretations that it wanted to. 

3. In Glasgow it was generally believed that the offense of
living off the immoral earnings of a woman was stamped out
by an Act in 1912 which prescribed corporal punishment for
the crime. The Committee observed that, although there were
substantial decreases in the number of crimes after this act,
flogging was actually never applied for any of these crimes.
Once again, the Committee failed to recognize the
significance of the threat of punishment as a deterrent. 

There are a number of other examples of "field studies"
related by the Committee, all of which were explained away
in this manner. Again, one should emphasize that the figures
or evidence are not conclusive either way, especially as we
know from the work of the National Research Council
review of deterrence research that field studies are filled with
impossible pitfalls and that there are so many alternative
factors which can affect crime rates. 

The significant point was that this Committee was prepared
to reject statistics when they appeared to support the thesis
that corporal punishment may have a deterrent effect, and to
accept data without too much criticism when they appeared
to show that it had no deterrent effect. 

4. The Committee made a special effort to meet one criticism,
namely that they were only examining the effects of corporal
punishment combined with prison, since at the time the laws
of England and Wales did not provide for corporal
punishment as a sentence on its own. It was always
combined with prison. An examination of this effort provides
an excellent example of the Cornmittee's confused thinking. 

Committee members compared the crime rates for violence
between England and Wales figured together and Scotland,
since Scotland did not have the power to impose corporal
punishment for violent crimes. They concluded that, because
the rate of violent crime was lower in Scotland compared
with England and Wales for the years 1900 to 1934, this
proved that corporal punishment added no appreciable
deterrent effect. It is clear that this is not a fair test of
corporal punishment, especially as there may be very good
reasons for supposing that the combination of corporal
punishment with prison may create a form of punishment
which is quite different from both prison or corporal
punishment alone. In the previous chapter we saw that this
combination came very close to torture. 

But even allowing for this, it is clearly misleading to claim
that it was corporal punishment, and only corporal
punishment, that was the effective cause of the higher crime
rate of England and Wales as compared with Scotland. Since
the Committee only compared data on violent crimes, one
suspects that, if property crimes had been included (crimes
for which whipping was not the punishment), similar
differences in crime rates between the two geographical and
social areas would have been found.(8) 

The point is that, just as in many similar studies of
deterrence reviewed by the National Research Council, there
is simply no way to exclude all of the possible factors that
may contribute to different crime rates between different
jurisdictions to allow one to safely conclude that a particular
punishment has had a deterrent effect. 

The Committee's categorical recommendations for abolition
of corporal punishment were therefore not warranted by the
data. Yet at the same time the Committee admitted that
whipping might have a deterrent effect: 

 We do not, of course, deny that it (corporal punishment)
 has some deterrent effect. All forms of punishment have
 some deterrent influence, and it is arguable that the
 more severe the punishment the greater the deterrent
 effect. This alone, however, would not be a sufficient
 ground for retaining the existing powers of corporal
 punishment. If it were it would also be a sufficient
 ground for making corporal punishment a possible
 penalty for many other offenses.(9) 

The Committee then went on to outline a number of other
crimes that the judiciary had suggested might be
appropriately punished by corporal punishment, and also a
range of crimes that various witnesses had suggested. It
complained, however, that there was 4 tno principle"
underlying the range of crimes that were suggested as fit for
corporal punishment, yet at the same time observed quite
astutely, that the crimes suggested were those that "excited
the imagination. " We can see at work here the quest for
punishments that can meet the quality of the crimes. But
because of the Committee's one-sided view of the purpose of
criminal punishment-deterrence to the exclusion of all
else-it failed to recognize the principle embedded in "special
indignation" (the Committee's words): retribution. 

Did British Criminals Learn Their Lesson? 

The Home Office examined the records of 440 offenders who
were convicted of robbery with violence, an offense that was
punishable by whipping at the time (1921-1930), and
compared those who were flogged with those who were not
flogged.(10) However the very same criticisms and flaws may
be identified in this study as in that by Caldwell. Whipping
was always administered in conjunction with a prison term,
so one is never able to separate the two punishments. (11) 

But the Home Office concluded that, if anything, the
whipped group displayed a higher recommittal rate than the
unwhipped group. The data are so similar to those presented
by Caldwell that one may conclude either (1) that whipping
really does produce higher rates of recommittal or (2) that
the biased selection of the whipped group as against the
unwhipped group contributed to the difference. Buried in the
appendix of the report is the statement that the majority of
the unflogged group was composed of first offenders, and that
the whipped group was made up largely of those who had
previous offenses of robbery, or who had previously served
long prison terms! 

Clearly, the groups were heavily biased from the beginning
and therefore no conclusion can be made as to whether
flogging taught criminals a lesson or not. 

We may conclude that the abolition of whipping is not
justified on the basis of deterrence research. 

Why Prison is a Bad Deterrent 

1. Chronic pain is not as efficient as acute pain. The
punishment applied to the subjects of the punishment
experiment described at the beginning of this chapter is one
that is always defined in terms of acute pain. In real criminal
punishment, this is far from the case. The punishment is
drawn out into long prison terms which are then-almost as
an apology for their being long-turned into periods of
"humane" punishment, described as deprivation of liberty,
while maintaining many physical comforts. 

2. Time works against prison. The scientists of punishment
know what makes punishment most effective: it must be
immediate and swift. That is, it must be administered as soon
after the offense as possible. In that way both the offender
and the public are able to make the connection between the
crime and the punishment. This important technique of
punishment is quite commensurate with retribution, in that,
if the link between the punishment and the crime is to be
clearly forged, it must occur as close as possible to the crime.
Thus, people will see the meaningful connection between the
punishment and the crime. The longer the delay the less
deserved will seem the punishment. 

For example, we find ourselves in great difficulty
understanding the justice of punishing an offender who has
been, say, in hiding for twenty years leading a life as a
productive citizen, who is finally apprehended and sentenced
to several years prison for a crime he committed so long ago.
Such a punishment seems somehow not right. 

It may be that it is because all we have to punish with is
"time," that the time elapsed since the offense naturally eats
away at the punishment. If we were to administer a
punishment that was acute and extremely brief, such
punishment does not seem so out of place, and is less affected
by time. The offender, even though he has spent the last
twenty years as a good citizen, still has his price to pay for
the original crime. To make him do even two years in prison
would seem unnecessarily destructive. To punish him with
pain for a few minutes preserves the offender's integrity, and
gives him a chance as well to make amends for his crime.
The balance between crime and punishment is restored, and
as little damage as possible is done in the process. 

3. Prison maximizes uncertainty. Any criminal worth his salt
knows that he can expect to get caught only for a small
number of his crimes. There is no certainty of punishment in
real life as far as crime is concerned. However, when we are
talking about general deterrence-that is, the deterrence by
the threat of punishment of those ordinary people who might
otherwise commit a crime-this is not so bad. It is likely that
most people grossly overestimate the chances of getting
caught, so that the "certainty" of the punishment is ensured
through the omnipresence of threat. 

Certainty means more than simply the chances of getting
caught, and in fact one might argue that this is not really
what certainty means when it comes to criminal punishment.
Certainty also requires that, when a person is found guilty of
a crime the punishment will in fact be carried out. 

This is the point on which most criminal justice reformers
have concentrated their energies over the last few years. As
we saw in Chapter 8, they have complained that judges'
discretion produced highly unpredictable sentences. Their
solution, we have seen, was to argue for the legislation of
mandatory or fixed sentences. 

This makes the punishment certain all right. But it makes the
wrong kind of punishment certain. In fact, these reformers
have mixed up certainty with severity. As long as the words
"mandatory" or "fixed" are there, they think that the problem
of certainty is solved. 

It is not, of course. 

The only thing that is certain is that the offender will go to
prison (that is, if he has not undergone plea bargaining for
some lesser offense-although some legislatures have also
tried to outlaw plea bargaining in an attempt to ensure
certainty of punishment). However, it is not certain that he
will be punished appropriately, or that the experience of
prison will even be painful. 

This problem would not arise if prisons were made once
again retributive, if the split between the crimes and the
criminals were made immense enough. 

One final defense of the deterrent use of corporal punishment
can be made-this time, paradoxically, from the point of view
of retribution. 

The argument in favor of the acute corporal punishment of
criminals would be made easier if it could be shown that it
had little lasting effect on the individuals punished. The
reason for this is that, according to the principles of the "old
retributivists," their main moral defense of punishment is this
very fact: that it punishes the act only, and leaves the person
unaffected (that is, unchanged). In this sense, the finding that
"nothing works" is great support for their position! 

The psychologists who advocate the use of painful techniques
to eliminate unwanted behavior argue that their methods are
designed specifically to eliminate only the particular
unwanted behaviors of the individual and leave the
individual's personality essentially untouched. 

For example, through an effective punishment routine,
Professor Eysenck of the renowned Maudsley Institute of
Psychiatry in London, eliminated a man's fetish for ladies'
handbags-a fetish that had gotten him into a lot of trouble.
This deviant behavior was eliminated through a punishment
schedule. Professor Eysenck and his associates are insistent
that they made no attempt (and see it as entirely
unnecessary) to "get inside the person's head" to some
supposed deeper problem of his personality." In that sense, it
may be said that this kind of punishment routine leaves the
individual untouched, especially in comparison with prison
which, we have seen throughout this book, essentially affects
the person's whole personality and life. 

Therefore, if we must use deterrence as the standard by
which to measure corporal punishment, we may say that not
only can it be shown to have a specific deterrent effect on a
specific behavior (which cannot be shown for prison) but it
also is a more justifiable deterrent in comparison with prison
because it focuses on the act rather than the actor. 

In Sum... 

We have seen that deterrence researchers have failed to
review the relevant research concerning the deterrent effects
of acutely painful punishment. The claim that "nothing
works" is not supported by the research evidence on corporal
punishment in the laboratory. 

In contrast, when research on corporal punishment in
criminal justice has been conducted, it has been interpreted in
a biased fashion, particularly in a way that favored prison as
a punishment. Social scientists' conclusions were invariably
that corporal punishment should be abolished because it
could not be demonstrated to have a deterrent effect. Yet
when similar results were reviewed for the effects of prison
as a deterrent, the conclusion that prison should be abolished
was never drawn. 

Finally, we saw that there are some situations in which
individual deterrent techniques were not too different from
the position advanced by the old retributivists, in which the
aim was to punish only a specific piece of behavior, leaving
the individual untouched. 

Undoubtedly, there are other areas of overlap between the
retributive and utilitarian positions. Another identified in an
earlier chapter was that between the educative function of
retribution in punishing by analogy and the deterrent
function of punishing by example. Clearly, there may be
room for some accommodation. It is to be hoped that, with
our new found knowledge of the role of pain in punishment,
and the varieties of pain and punishments that are truly
available to us, these areas of accommodation will be
researched in more depth in the years to come. 

For the moment, there is a great need for experimentation in
punishment, and to summon the courage to try some creative
sentencing. 


Footnotes

I . The research is reviewed in Newman, Punishment
Response, Chapter 11. 

2. Martinson, "What works? Questions and Answers." 

3. Professor Caldwell's views against whipping were
advanced with great vigor, and his research was therefore
appropriately slanted. He compared the crime rates in
Wilmington, Delaware for the year 1940 with those of other
nearby cities, which did not use whipping, using statistics
from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (in those days in
their very early stage and most unreliable). Nevertheless,
Caldwell pushed on to claim that Wilmington had a high rate
of larceny per hundred thousand population, compared with
the other cities which were New York; Newark, New Jersey;
Trenton, New Jersey; Camden, New Jersey; Philadelphia;
Baltimore; Washington, D. C.; Richmond, Virginia; and
Norfolk, Virginia. But his own data did not show Delaware
to have overall an excessively high rate of crime compared to
other cities. In fact, Delaware had comparatively low
burglary and auto theft rates. 

4. Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment,
Chairman: Honorable Edward Cardogan, Command Paper
(London: HMSO, February 19,1938) No. 5684. 

5. Ibid. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Jennifer Davis, "The London Garotting Panic of 1862: A
Moral Panic and the Creation of a Criminal Class in
Mid-Victorian England." In V. A. C. Gatrell, B. Lenman
and G. Parker, eds., Crime and the Law: The Social History of
Crime in Western Europe since 1500 (London: Europa
Publications, 1980): 190-213. 

8. For a quick review of this point see: Abstract of Britishh
Historical Statistics 1962, and Second Abstract of British
Historical Statistics 1971. 

9. Ibid. In a later study, the Home Office did find that
corporal punishment was effective in deterring Borstal
absconders. See R. V. G. Clarke and D. N. Martin, 
Absconding from Approved Schools (London: HMSO, 197 1). 

10. Of some interest was the finding that when offenders
who had previously long prison terms were divided into
flogged and unflogged, it appeared that flogging had some
deterrent effect on this small group. However, since the
differences were so small, the Committee would have been
justified in dismissing this finding as simply a coincidence.
Instead, it further analyzed the data and was able to conclude
that while there was some evidence that flogging deterred
offenders from committing the same offense, it may have the
effect of encouraging the commission of different offenses.
Thus, the conclusion, stated as though it were "objective"
was: 

 We are prepared to admit that a man who has been
 flogged may take good care to avoid doing anything
 which might earn him a second flogging: but in our
 view it is not enough that such a man should be
 deterred by fear from committing again the few offenses
 for which corporal punishment may have been imposed
 if, by the punishment which he has received, he has
 been made more apt to commit many other offenses for
 which corporal punishment cannot be imposed. 

Needless to say, the Committee did not find that flogging
made an offender more apt to commit many other offenses
for which whipping was not a punishment. The data were
only suggestive of a small increase. 

11. The Home Office Committee did locate two cases in
which whipping alone was the punishment, and actually
found that whipping had a decided deterrent effect. Of
course, because of the small sample, we cannot draw any
definite conclusions from such observations. 

12. H. J. Eysenck, Crime and Personality (London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1977). 

   
    Geez,  Hans Eysenck - the most misquoted of Psychos.  Also, If you read
    Breland & Breland's rebuttal text to Skinner;s work - titled the
    "Misbehavior of Organisms" you'll find that the punishment data is
    extremely flawed.  
    
    The flogging study is not the oldest - I've quoted a  more recent study
    elsewhere based on the Isle of Man, which used birching (flogging with a
    birch rod) in more recent times and with the same lack of efficacy.
    
    As stated before, the vast weight of psychological data indicates that
    positive reinforcement is far more effective in instilling a long term
    change in behavior, except in some extreme cases.  The extreme cases
    would clearly be abusive if applied to humans, so they provide no
    useful fodder to this debate.
    
    
    Colin
    
    
    PS - As a discussion question:
    
    If you come to rely on corporal punishment as your ultimate form of
    punishment in the face of misbehavior, and you claim the psychological
    studies support your view, what do you do when your child throws a fit
    of defiance to authority in a crowded Mall?
    
    
    (reposted without naughty word for poop)

    
    
    
    .154 This article is not research on pro's vs cons of coporal
    	 punishment. The research it quotes just shows how widely used it is,
    	 and how it's done. This is not under debate. The article 
    	 turns finally to religous myths for support, this is not substance.
        
    
    	 Was there corporal punishment where you went to school?
    	 There was where I did, and I can't even imagine it being needed.
    
    	 Like your knick-knack story it is merely an anecdote, I have the
    	 same version with my own son but I used NO and Distraction. 
    	 1 Yr, 12 days...and nothing broken yet. 
    
    	 You said you don't believe corporal punishment for infants that it
    	 has no good effects, then admit you have, how do you resolve that? 
        	 
         Animal research: Ignoring the fact that the rat can't know who's
    	 punishing it and it's mental health can't be measured.
    	 If hitting an animal was good, you would think dog training books 
    	 would reflect this and they don't.       

    
    
    	Must I qualify every statement? {sigh}
    
>    	 You said you don't believe corporal punishment for infants that it
>    	 has no good effects, then admit you have, how do you resolve that? 
    
    	I don't believe corporal punishment works for an infant that is
    under 6months old, howszat? When I say I don't believe in it for
    infants, I meant infants that are still babies (i.e. - don't walk,
    don't crawl, etc). Perhaps I should have spelled this out for you?
    Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Also, as I said, each child is
    different and needs to be disciplined in a way that works for them.
    Maybe at 7months old they need the occasional slap on the back of the
    hand. 
    
    	Overall, I would say most *young* infants (that better?) don't need
    any form of corporal punishment. 
    
>    .154 This article is not research on pro's vs cons of coporal
>    	 punishment. The research it quotes just shows how widely used it is,
>    	 and how it's done. This is not under debate. The article 
>    	 turns finally to religous myths for support, this is not substance.
    
    	Hey, you don't consider it substance, I do. I do believe the
    article states that school principals find it effective as a deterrent.
    Or did you miss that? Regardless of your definition of "research", it
    *is* a paper that leans toward the pro side of the debate (which is why
    I entered it). I do believe it is of value in this discussion.
    
>    	 Was there corporal punishment where you went to school?
>    	 There was where I did, and I can't even imagine it being needed.
    
    	yes there was and yes, I can certainly see where it was needed!
    
>    	 Like your knick-knack story it is merely an anecdote, I have the
>    	 same version with my own son but I used NO and Distraction. 
>    	 1 Yr, 12 days...and nothing broken yet. 
    
    	Good for you. I have 7yrs and nothing broken with two children.
    
>    	 If hitting an animal was good, you would think dog training books 
>    	 would reflect this and they don't.       
    
    	Nice rebuttle (not). I have had quite a few dogs in the past years
    and they've all been hit after doing bad things (with a rolled up paper
    at the worst...never hard enough to injure them). The times they were
    hit were few and far between and only for the more serious infractions
    (taking food off the counter etc). They've never turned on any of the
    family and they've never bitten anyone. Every dog was as kind and
    gentle as can be, right up until they passed away. 
    	
    	re: the kid acting up in the mall
    
    	I'd handle it the way I handle my two now. I tell them to stop or
    when they get home they will get a spank on the butt and sent to their
    room. When I get home, I make sure the punishment is carried out (one
    swat on the butt with their clothes on and a bare hand). Then I tell
    them that when they are ready to apologize for their behavior, they may
    come out and talk to me about it. It only takes about 10-15min before
    they are out of their room and apologizing. I ask them if they know
    what they did wrong and they must explain it to me. 
    
    	Corporal punishment WHEN COUPLED WITH ALTERNATIVE METHODS can be
    a very effective way of raising good kids. 
    
    
    jim

    >  730.159 by SUBPAC::SADIN
    
    > *young* infants
    
    
    department of redundancy department alert!
    
    (sorry for the intrusion)

>           <<< Note 730.159 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>
    
>    	Corporal punishment WHEN COUPLED WITH ALTERNATIVE METHODS can be
>    a very effective way of raising good kids. 

	Gee, where have we heard that before?  Maybe you could figure
	out fifty other ways of saying the same thing and the people
	who don't believe in spanking will suddenly come around to
	your way of thinking.  Yes, it could happen. ;>

    
    
    	re: .161
    
    	wise arse. :*) I just want people to realise I don't beat my kids
    senseless. 
    
    jim

   .162  james, darlin', anyone who hasn't figured that out by now
	 is one taco short of a combination plate.

    
    
    	re: .163
    
    	we've got some of those around here Di...;*) 
    
    

    Anybody heard about Dan Quail's new book?  I understand that he's
    written a book about the deterioration of American families and has
    stated that in part it is due to the transience of our day.  That the
    average family moves [forget the numbers now] so often that it doesn't
    allow for values to be established [each neighborhood will have its own
    personality], or friendships to deepen, etc.
    
    I think it is an interesting perspective that has not yet to my
    knowledge even been mentioned in soapbox.  I guess for the most part,
    I've had difficulty even ascertaining whether the majority of the folks
    in here even believe that families are in trouble these days.
    
    Anyway, those who would care to respond, what types of pros and cons
    are there for families that move around frequently?  And do you believe
    that not being rooted in a community diminishes parental control?
    
    Nancy

    
    	I thought it was all Murphy Brown's fault for having a child
    	out of wedlock.
    

         
.159 
    
    	Sorry I've been busy and haven't meant to neglect this string.
    
>    	Nice rebuttle (not). I have had quite a few dogs in the past years
>    and they've all been hit after doing bad things (with a rolled up paper
>    at the worst...never hard enough to injure them). The times they were
>    hit were few and far between and only for the more serious infractions
>    (taking food off the counter etc). They've never turned on any of the
>    family and they've never bitten anyone. Every dog was as kind and
>    gentle as can be, right up until they passed away. 
 
 	Again, I trained my dog without hitting it.
    	Daycares everywhere manage children without hitting them.
    	My schools (growing up) managed children with hitting them.
    
    
    	You have said often what matters is the child, that they are all
    	different. I say the difference that matters is the parents. 
    
    	

    
    
    	To each his own Dennis.
    
    

    
    
>    	To each his own Dennis.
 


    somebody else can have mine, thank you.




 Jim   
    

 >   	You have said often what matters is the child, that they are all
 >   	different. I say the difference that matters is the parents. 
 
 Trying to boil the argument down to a simple 'one solution fits all' 
 answer will never cover all the bases ...