Surprise, surprise. Swedish society has not collapsed. I think similar laws exist in Finland.

previous thread: spanking law upheld

Assault is illegal.

Assault is any unwanted touching, including a threat to touch.

The Criminal Code exempts from prosecution those parents who touch a child using reasonable force for a corrective purpose.

Those who wish to remove that last protective clause, simply hand over to police the discretion to prosecute.

In theory, should the protective clause be removed, grounding a child in his or her bedroom would be forcible confinement, and grabbing his/her hand to make the child leave the playground would be assault.

Of course, everyone knows that the police won't prosecute those cases. Unless they don't like you, or have little sympathy for your ethnic group or sexual orientation.

States with full abolition of corporal punishment of children.

quote:

---

Sweden was the first country in the world to prohibit all corporal punishment of children. In 1979 a provision was added to the Parenthood and Guardianship Code which now reads: "Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment."

The proposal, together with a draft Bill, came from a multi-disciplinary Children's Rights Commission, chaired by an eminent judge, which emphasised: "The primary purpose of the provision is to make it clear that beating children is not permitted. Secondly, the Commission wishes to create a basis for general information and education for parents as to the importance of giving children good care and as to one of the prime requirements of their care. The proposed provision should, in the long term, contribute towards reducing the number of cases of acts of physical violence on children". It proposed a "recurrent general parent education programme". When the Bill went before Parliament it was passed by 259 votes to 6.

The Ministry of Justice led a very large-scale education campaign. A pamphlet distributed to every household with children emphasised that "the law now forbids all forms of physical punishment of children, including smacking etc, although it goes without saying that you can still snatch a child away from a hot stove or open window if there is a risk of its injuring itself".

The legal provision forms part of Sweden's family (civil) law. But its purpose is to emphasise beyond doubt that the criminal code on assault covers physical punishment, although trivial offences remain unpunished just as trivial assaults between adults are not prosecutable.

A detailed research review of the effects of Sweden's ban has been carried out by Professor Joan E Durrant, Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Family Studies at the University of Manitoba. See A Generation Without Smacking - The impact of Sweden's ban on physical punishment (1.9 MB PDF).

---

In all, 23 states have taken these measures. Sadly, Canada has not.

Spain (2007)
Chile (2007)
Venzuela (2007)
Uruguay (2007)
Portugal (2007)
New Zealand (2007)
Netherlands (2007)
Greece (2006)
Hungary (2005)
Romania (2004)
Ukraine (2004)
Iceland (2003)
Germany (2000)
Israel (2000)
Bulgaria (2000)
Croatia (1999)
Latvia (1998)
Denmark (1997)
Cyprus (1994)
Austria (1989)
Norway (1987)
Finland (1983)
Sweden (1979)

Jeff, I understand your fears about discriminatory use of this provision, but isn't that true of any law?

In many parts of the world, men can still "discipline" their wife - even if it is usually technically illegal now, macho police and courts do not clamp down on such treatment. Sure, children don't have an adult's capacity to reason, but neither do mentally disabled people, and it is not legal to assault them (all people can be restrained from harming others).

I think allowing corporal punishment of children is a holdover from the days when they were seen as chattel.

quote:

---

Jeff, I understand your fears about discriminatory use of this provision, but isn't that true of any law?

---

Not really. The proposal criminalizes a lot of behaviour not now criminal. ANY NONCONSENSUAL TOUCHING of a minor would now be a crime.

When concerns are raised, the proponents say that we can trust the police not to lay charges when the crimes being committed are minor in nature.

I would rather have the "minor crimes" not be crimes at all. That way, the police would have no discretion to arrest anyone.

As it stands in Ontario, correction of a child is criminal if it involves striking with an implement such as a belt or a switch, or if the physical damage is more than "transient".

Those, at least, are standards which allow behaviour to be measured to some extent, and leaves it to the courts to make the final determination.

So, the objectives of the law are (at least) two-fold (1) prevent beating of children (i.e., the “primary” purpose) and (2) some unstated (secondary) purpose(s).

The language from the code (again, from N.Beltov’s quoted text above) gives a clue (really, the only clue) as to what that secondary purpose might be: "Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment"

Beating a kid is one thing (it’s relatively objective—either a kid is being beaten or the kid is not—if you define a “beating” as the use of “any” use of force) but whether or not something is “humiliating treatment” is highly subjective.

Is sending a kid to her room for misbehaving “humiliating treatment”? Yeah, it’s humiliating.

Is telling a kid that he has to apologize to a neighbor kid for doing something bad “humiliating”? Yeah, that can definitely be humiliating.

Parents may tell a kid that if he does start doing X (chores, studying, etc.) or stop doing Y (routinely not coming home by a certain time, playing video games all of the time, etc.) that the kid will no longer be able to play a certain sport. The kid doesn’t start doing X (or stop doing Y) and the kid can no longer play the sport with her friends and the kid is “humiliated”. Is that actionable?

Basically, parental expression of disapproval by providing adverse consequences is almost by definition “humiliating” to the kid.

So, is the state going to come in and determine what is and what is not criminally “humiliating”? If so, a country might as well take kids away from parents from the moment of birth and give them to the Ministry of Child-Rearing.

As to "beatings", I agree with what Jeff House has written.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

I don't think it's a strawman, I think it is the reality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Don't let me get in the way of your straw man. Knock yourself out.

---

You must misunderstand the meaning of a “straw man argument”.

If I was truly making a “straw man argument”, I would be saying, in effect, that the ban on “humiliating treatment” is bad for reasons X, Y, and Z and that, therefore, the ban on spanking is also a bad idea. That would have been a “straw man argument”.

But, in fact, they (spanking and “humiliating treatment”) are separate issues and I was addressing only the “humiliating treatment” issue. Only in passing did I say that I agreed with Jeff House’s comments on spanking.

Joan Durrant has responded to a critique of the changes in Sweden from Robert Larzelere of "The Christian Institute and Families First" organization. This is sort of organizations that is, still, trying to reverse the Swedish and other changes. Durrant eviscerates Larzelere in her "Law Reform and Corporal Punishment in Sweden" which can be found at one of the links I've provided.

The point is this: vehement opponents of laws prohibiting corporal punishment of children, it seems, should have had enough time (since 1979 in Sweden, e.g.) to demonstrate the sort of police misuse of their powers that you and Sven are worrying about.

But I don't see that argument being made by Larzelere et al. Edited to add: or, at least, good arguments that Durrant isn't able to make short work of.

Perhaps the legal regimen here has more built-in dangers?

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

But I don't see how that can be used to justify hurting smaller, weaker people because they are YOUR minor children. You don't have the right to beat someone else's minor children if they trample your flowers or hurt your cat.

---

Parents do indeed have legal authority over their own children. IF my smaller, weaker son is killing your cat, I may grab him by the hand, shake him, or even swat him on the bum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Don't let me get in the way of your straw man. Knock yourself out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Parents do indeed have legal authority over their own children. IF my smaller, weaker son is killing your cat, I may grab him by the hand, shake him, or even swat him on the bum.

The best way to keep you from having the authority to punish my child, is if I have the authority. That way, when you find him hurting your cat, you simply transfer him to me for correction, and not to the police.

---

Study after study shows that hitting children is the least effective means of changing behaviour and in way too many cases it leads to adults who are violent and have serious anger management problems. Not surprising when their parents use violence to solve problems.

The real question is where does the harm of spanking children outweigh any good. We don't let parents send their children out to work at 8 because we recognize that it is not healthy for the children even if the family might in the short term really need the income. If they do the sate can intervene.

What I find interesting is listening to the various talking heads on this issue. By and large the same media who demand that young offenders be treated as adults when charged with crimes are also saying that parents need the right to hit their children even though it has been proven that a significant percentage of children who are parented by hitting will in fact become violent themselves.

quote:

---

Spanking: It hurts more than you think

“Spanking hurts more than you think” is an early child development public education campaign that includes TV ads to remind parents that spanking is hitting and never a positive way to discipline your child.

Parenting is very rewarding, but nobody ever said it was easy. There are ups and downs, and both you and your child will make mistakes along the way. That’s okay. You’re not alone.

One of the major challenges you might face is discipline. When your child’s behaviour pushes you to the edge, how do you handle it? Do you see spanking as a solution?

You may feel really frustrated at the time, but spanking is not discipline. It is physical punishment and it can hurt your child.

You can use discipline to teach your child to behave. It can be hard but it’s also rewarding. If you’re not sure how to respond to your child’s behaviour, take a moment to read a little further. After all, every parent can use a little help sometimes.

---

Sweden's Experience

quote:

---

According to the people I met in Sweden, this generation of parents just doesn’t think about spanking. It’s been 50 years since Sweden’s version of Section 43 was removed from the Penal Code, and almost 30 since the Swedish parliament passed an amendment, in 1979, to its Parent and Guardianship Code (akin to our provincial child protection legislation), expressly forbidding any form of corporal punishment. The intervening years witnessed a profound attitudinal shift away from spanking.

There was a time when Swedish parents spanked their children. A survey of Swedes born in the 1950s found that all had been subjected to corporal punishment at least once. A little more than a generation later, the picture was markedly different: Data from a longitudinal study of Swedes born in the 1980s found that 86 percent said they had never been physically punished by their parents. In a survey conducted in the mid-1990s, only 11 percent of Swedes expressed support for even mild forms of corporal punishment.

In contrast, a recent Canadian survey found that 42 percent of respondents not only condoned spanking, but said it was beneficial for a child’s development.

Cecilia Moen, a mother of one who grew up in both Sweden and Canada, says the issue for Swedish parents is not being worried about what will happen if they get caught smacking their child. It’s that they genuinely don’t want to do it. “Most people here [in Sweden] think it’s bad to physically punish a child, that it would be a sign of failure as a parent,” she says.

Moen, who lives near Gothenburg, Sweden’s second-largest city, says child welfare workers focus on supporting parents, not on catching them breaking the law. “The first step is often to try to help the parents so that they can become better parents.

---

Spanking Justice Canada Says Doesn't Work

quote:

---

Spanking is not an effective form of discipline, even though some people may think it is.
Spanking can lead to anger and resentment and
can cause children to lose trust in their parents.
Spanking teaches that hitting others is okay. In the long run, spanking makes children's behaviour
worse, not better.

---

Why should parents be allowed to subject their children to a potentially harmful practice that is clearly not effective?

quote:

---

CBC: When the boys were taken to hospital last fall, doctors found they had a total of 19 broken or cracked bones. They have recovered from their injuries, but remain in the care of child-welfare authorities.

---

Winnipeg man awaits sentence.

____________________________________

CBC Discussion of similar issue to this thread.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
I think making a binary choice about spanking without considering the harm done by other parenting methods (solitary confinement, public chastising, denial of valued rights/priveleges) is silly and useless.

---

If something is ineffective and potentially harmful why should it be allowed merely because other parenting techniques also are potentially flawed. The bottom line is that hitting your kids doesn't make them better children and there is a well documented case that it too often does real harm to both the children first and then society next as those children who have been beaten as "punishment" decide it is all right to injure others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Study after study shows that hitting children is the least effective means of changing behaviour and in way too many cases it leads to adults who are violent and have serious anger management problems. Not surprising when their parents use violence to solve problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Lets see we know arsenic pollutes rivers but we shouldn't ban it because other things pollute rivers also. Is that not the same logic you are using?

---

We should not ban arseric if it is 100% that corporations will just use lead and mercury instead. That's not the case so your analogy is flawed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

We should not ban arseric if it is 100% that corporations will just use lead and mercury instead. That's not the case so your analogy is flawed.

Parents will discipline their children, and thus spanking should only be shunned if it is known to be more damaging and/or less beneficial than other methods in all cases.

---

Or are you saying that although we know hitting children is often harmful and is normally more harmful than other methods as long as in some instances mental abuse can be worse we should allow parents to beat their children. Wouldn't it be just better to try and protect children.

The problem is that while arsenic, lead and mercury are comparatively toxic in that they all have poor outcomes the same is not true for parenting techniques. Your argument is similar to the gun debate. Why ban guns when people can murder with knives? Why ban beating children when parents can do harm in non-physical ways?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So you disagree with the research? I've posted numerous links were the research all points to the problems with spanking.

Or are you saying that although we know hitting children is often harmful and is normally more harmful than other methods as long as in some instances mental abuse can be worse we should allow parents to beat their children. Wouldn't it be just better to try and protect children.

The problem is that while arsenic, lead and mercury are comparatively toxic in that they all have poor outcomes the same is not true for parenting techniques. Your argument is similar to the gun debate. Why ban guns when people can murder with knives? Why ban beating children when parents can do harm in non-physical ways?

I hope your children recover from their punishment!

---

Yes I'm very doubtful of their conclusions. You didn't even post any credible sources like research papers directly from neuroscientists, you posted links to colourful web pages from groups and even from the MSM outlet "Today's Parent".

As no credible evidence has been posted of your claim, then it is equivalent to all other claims, with the caveat that it doesn't do well on a purely reason-based analysis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
The real question is where does the harm of spanking children outweigh any good.

---

Is that a rhetorical question or are you asking if there is a point, on a continuum, where an increasing qualitative degree of corporal punishment starts to create a harm that outweighs any benefits accruing from corporal punishment? If it’s the latter, I think that’s a valid question.

But, some people seem to be unable to discern a qualitative difference between a spanking (especially when it occurs only once or very rarely) and a “beating”. A beating, particularly if repeated (and most particularly if it is a common occurrence), may condition a child to view violence as normal behavior when the child becomes an adult.

My questions would be:

1. Does a spanking (particularly when it is only a rare event) have the same adverse effect, if any, as a beating (especially when a beating repeated)? I would think the answer is “no”.

I think that there are many parenting habits and practices that are (especially cumulatively) far more detrimental to a child’s development than an occasional spanking when they are little. Yet, few, if any, advocates of banning spanking would even think about state interference with those parental actions (or omissions).

For example, parents who:

■ Let their children watch excessive amounts of television (particularly television with lots of violence and other adult themes)

■ Let their kids eat whatever junk food the kids want to eat (obesity is rampant in North America)

■ Let young kids stay out as late as they want

■ Don’t engage in their children’s school work (don’t make sure that homework is being done, don’t talk to teachers, don’t question grades, etc.)

■ Don’t read to their children

■ Don’t correct antisocial behavior

■ Don’t inculcate basic norms of social interaction

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Sorry, I was too dazzled by your usage of bold, italics and bulleted lists to follow your logic there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
As an aside, one additional question I’d ask of those who favor a prohibition on spanking (even if once) is: Why stop with spanking?

I think that there are many parenting habits and practices that are (especially cumulatively) far more detrimental to a child’s development than an occasional spanking when they are little. Yet, few, if any, advocates of banning spanking would even think about state interference with those parental actions (or omissions).

For example, parents who:

■ Let their children watch excessive amounts of television (particularly television with lots of violence and other adult themes)

■ Let their kids eat whatever junk food the kids want to eat (obesity is rampant in North America)

■ Let young kids stay out as late as they want

■ Don’t engage in their children’s school work (don’t make sure that homework is being done, don’t talk to teachers, don’t question grades, etc.)

■ Don’t read to their children

■ Don’t correct antisocial behavior

■ Don’t inculcate basic norms of social interaction

I don’t see any advocates of banning spanking saying, “Parents must also be required by the state to do X, Y, and Z and, in addition to not spanking, the state must also prohibit parents from doing A, B, or C”, even though not doing X, Y, and Z and doing A, B, and C will likely have a detrimental effect (especially cumulatively) on the development of children and their future ability to function as adults.

---

Sven,

It's because physical pain is the worst possible thing imaginable, any verbally, psychologically or emotionally questionable situation is prefferable to one in which physical pain takes place.

For example, there are claims of developmental side effects to physical spankings, but no such claims for shouting, humiliation, et cetera.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Why is the burden of proof on someone who says you shouldn't beat your kids? Why is the default position corporal punishment?

---

Spanking is not beating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Just to re-iterate, there are plenty of articles and research results on the Joan Durrant bio at Univ of Manitoba Human Ecology link.

And the author actually provides her e mail address, if you want to ask her a specific question. Who knows? She might even reply.

---

Most of the publications have no links to them.

But, here's a statement in one of the publications that was linked to on her site: "Substantial proportions of victims of punitive violence exhibit internalizing or externalizing problems. Nineteen percent of victims exhibited depression or anxiety, 20% displayed violence towards others and 19% were involved in negative peer relationships. Similar differences were noted to similar degrees among children who had experienced emotional punishment."

So, 19% of children who are "victims of punitive violence" suffer from depression or anxiety. Now, I'm no statistician but there are three obvious (but unanswered) questions this raises:

(1) What is the rate of depression for all children? In other words, is her 19% statistic an unusually high rate of depression? According to this MIT publication, 17% of Americans "will suffer from a major depressive episode at least once in their lifetime". I have no idea what the actual rate of depression is but it it's even roughly close to what she is saying in that report, then the quoting of that percentage is pretty much meaningless.

(2) What is the evidence that the physical punishment caused the depression? There are many, many factors (not the least of which is genetics) that lead to depression. How has the good professor managed to isolate the variable of physical punishment as being the relevant variable? She just throws out the number: 19% of those who are "victims of punitive violence" suffer from depression--as though that statistic is meaninful in itself. It's not.

(3) There is no differentiation between children who gets a periodic swat on the behind and children who are violently beaten and emotionally abused on an ongoing basis. The children, it would appear, are all mixed up on one big pot. You cannot legitimately point to this kind of statistic and say, "See? Spanking (even if only employed rarely) is demonstrably bad."

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
It's because physical pain is the worst possible thing imaginable

---

Really? That's a rather definitive statement.

I’ve had a lot of very painful physical hurts (broken bones, bad back, etc.) in my life but depression is far more “painful”, though not physical, than any of them...by far.

ETA: This is not to mention other emotional hurts that I've experienced over the years. And, in my opinion, a severe emotional hurt is much more painful than any physical pain I've suffered from. Not even comparable.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Really? That's a rather definitive statement.

I’ve had a lot of very painful physical hurts (broken bones, bad back, etc.) in my life but depression is far more “painful”, though not physical, than any of them...by far.

ETA: This is not to mention other emotional hurts that I've experienced over the years. And, in my opinion, a severe emotional hurt is much more painful than any physical pain I've suffered from. Not even comparable.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

What exactly constitutes an "acceptable" spanking?

Of course I'm not talking about a parent who hauls off and punches his child because they spilt some milk at the dinner table. We would all say that that is abuse.

But what about a parent who has lost patience and in an outburst of anger viscously spanks a child on his/her ass. No marks are left, not a single bruise, we aren't talking about a physical abuse here, the ass is quite resilient, but the emotional damage to a child from such a parental spanking outburst can be long lasting and lead to life long anger management issues.

Why anger management issues? Because if you as an adult can recall what it was like to be a small child you will understand how frustrating it can be to be attacked in such a manner with ABSOLUTELY no way to prevent it. You are helpless yes? With no one who at that moment is on your side, so to speak. Then to be left alone perhaps in your room in pain and humiliation.

I do not believe that striking a child should in any way be a legal act. Restraining a child as in holding them or taking them by the arm or hand to remove them from a situation amy be nesessary, I don't see that causing a problem, but corporal punishment of children by parents should be outlawed.

Because as I already said, how do you define "acceptable" spanking. Even more how do you enforce such a thing. We either make corporal punishment legal knowing there will be many cases of excessiveness, or we ban it altogether.

I am sure you are the reasonable kind of parents that would only give a little tap on the bum and not a cuff on the side of the head or a little shake to get their attention when you can't figure out what is bothering a child not a series of shakes in anger. Your reasonable behaviour in an angry man unfortunately escalates into a sound whipping or shaken baby syndrome.

In my opinion the condoning of hitting children as a form of discipline when parents don't t know the difference between hitting and beating puts a lot of children who live with angry people in danger. Telling a violent man or woman that they can "spank" their children is the problem. Battered children are real and societal attitudes play a role in those numbers.

Don't hit!!! That is what most of us taught our children growing up. I never found it necessary to add except when I feel like I should hit you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
A question for all the non-state interventionists, do you also think that young offenders accused of violent crimes should be tried in adult court?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maritimesea:
But how do we know when "spanking" has crossed the line into "beating"?

---

Leads into...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maritimesea:
Restraining a child as in holding them or taking them by the arm...

---

But how do we know when "taking" them by the arm isn't unlawfully "pulling" them by the arm?

And, how do we know when "holding" them isn't "squeezing" them?

"Taking" a child by the arm or "holding" in a restraining manner should, therefore, be a crime, too.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

We should not ban arseric if it is 100% that corporations will just use lead and mercury instead. That's not the case so your analogy is flawed.

Parents will discipline their children, and thus spanking should only be shunned if it is known to be more damaging and/or less beneficial than other methods in all cases.

---

But it HAS been shown to be largely ineffective in any but an extremely short-term situation, and even then not especially effective.

Hitting other people doesn't work. Not on kids and not on adults. It assuages some feelings of frustration in the parent but it only teaches kids that if you're provoked or frustrated enough, it's okay to haul off and whack somebody.

I've noticed someone talking about "deserved" swats... Who deserves to be hit? You? Me? That guy over there who's doing stuff he shouldn't and is pissing you off? Yeah, maybe he does "deserve" to be hit -- so go for it! But first, just who the fuck are you to decide.

Maybe we should bring caning back into the justice system. If spanking's good for kids, why not criminals?

Possibly because it's barbaric and doesn't work... Just to float a guess.

quote:

---

Why is the burden of proof on someone who says you shouldn't beat your kids? Why is the default position corporal punishment?

---

Because parents who are tired and frustrated lack both imagination and empathy. I know it, I've been there. I still didn't think it gave me the right to hit my kids, but I've been tempted.

quote:

---

I don't think it's a strawperson either...

---

No lagatta; not you too!

BUT...I think we also have a society full of people who aren't "there yet" when it comes to not spanking children, and I don't think it's a great idea to immediately criminalize all parents who spank or hit their child.

Do you trust the CAS and the police to not target low income families, and families of colour, and immigrant families with such a law? I sure as hell don't. And I don't want to see good parents (and parents who occasionally spank ARE just as good parents as the rest of us - we all fuck up our kids in some way, none of us being perfect) having their kids taken away from them.

A close friend of mine had the CAS intervene because her one of her kids (who are black) were targeted at school for questioning by the principal about drugs (which they had nothing to do with, but they're black, you know, so obviously they must know something, right? ). Anyhow, her kid told the principal, "I don't know anything about it - my mom would kill me if I did drugs." He was clearly using hyperbole.

But those assholes called the CAS based on that statement. (I somehow doubt they'd have called the CAS on a white kid from a well-off family for that.) And the CAS actually investigated, based on some kid saying, "My mom would kill me if I did that." As it turns out, they chose the wrong black family to pick on, because his mother raised holy hell over it.

And they experienced racist shit like this ALL THE TIME, from school officials, from police. She would be the first one to get her kid taken away from her if she ever gave her kid a swat on the butt and some authority found out about it. But I know lots of upper middle class white kids whose parents smacked them and spanked them and some whose parents even took a belt to them. You can bet they will NEVER be targeted by such a law. Ever. In a million years.

The reason I don't want to see a simple spank become illegal isn't because I believe in spanking kids. I definitely don't. But I think the practice is so widespread (even a lot of parents who don't believe in it lose it once in a while and do it either out of anger or because they feel like they've tried everything else) that making it illegal will criminalize everyone instead of teaching them better child-rearing techniques.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I think first of all maybe the sentencing provisions need to be on the right page. A spank on the bum is different than a whipping with a rod the size of my thumb. Both used to be legal and now it is arguable that the whipping is not "reasonable" but that would be the courts role to decide. The studies from Sweden show that an attitudinal change occurred and children now don't get hit as often in Sweden.

In Canada we chose to enforce seat belt laws, another hot topic for "individual" rights people. In many US states they didn't because it was a individual issue. We have compliance in Canada and most people don't even think about it when they get in a car they buckle up. In the US apparently that is not the case in many states that don't have enforcement or maybe even laws.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[QB]

I’ve had a lot of very painful physical hurts (broken bones, bad back, etc.) in my life but depression is far more “painful”, though not physical, than any of them...by far.

ETA: This is not to mention other emotional hurts that I've experienced over the years. And, in my opinion, a severe emotional hurt is much more painful than any physical pain I've suffered from. Not even comparable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maritimesea:
but the emotional damage to a child from such a parental spanking outburst can be long lasting and lead to life long anger management issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

No long-term emotional damage.

---

Oh ya, who did you vote for last election?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So by your [Michelle’s] logic above we should not have speeding laws because we are sure they will be disproportionally used against POC.

---

That’s also a good point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
I was spanked on occasion when I deserved it.

No long-term emotional damage.

---

I was and didn't (no child does). There was emotional damage and it's a major part of the reason I won't hit the wild girls.

My mother says if she had it to do over again, she wouldn't have spanked us. It was never effective, anyway, and only caused a rift between us that she deeply regretted later.

I also have to wonder: if you believe you deserved to be hit by your parents, what're the chances you're going to rationalize being hit by your partner later in life the same way?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
Kids go through devellopment stages long before they can reason things out. You would not explain why to a chicken or to a cat. Why do it to a child who has no capacity to reason?
Dumber than a dog in training.

---

Actually, choosing not to spank does not mean giving age-inappropriate explanations by default.

I've trained dogs without hitting. I've trained cats without hitting. Can't say much for chickens, but you can teach most creatures to repeat behaviours without hitting or long, rational explanations.

Children, btw, do develop reasoning quite early. It's not the same as adult reasoning, which can be frustrating, but there is reasoning there all the same. It takes more energy to work with it than it does to lob a smack at them, but it's far more effective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
No! and a mad glare is not going to stop them walking in front of a car or off a cliff either.

---

Okay, so what age are we talking about here? If they don't respond easily to verbal cues, you're looking at 12 to 24 mos or so. My next question is this: WTF are you doing walking on a cliff with a 2 yr old and not hanging on to him or her? Or a parking lot? What kind of an idiot parent does that?

Why do people trot out this sort of reason for spanking when the majority of kids don't get spanked for wandering? If you ARE spanking your 2 yr old for meandering, then I think social services probably should be involved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
Kids also go through a "find the borders" stage.
If you ban spanking, the borders will be that little bit further out for years to come.
Are you willing to accept a higher level of infant mortality as a consequence?

---

Using discipline methods other than spanking does not mean you don't set boundaries, often the same boundaries that parents who spank set. The difference is the reliance on punishment. Ask any behavioural psychologist if punishment is the most effective method of teaching boundaries and they will tell you it isn't.

Trotting out infant mortality is completely illogical here. Please do show us some evidence that getting hit ever saved an infant's life. Well, maybe if you smack the inattentive parent above who's letting his 2 yr old wander over a cliff or around a busy parking lot it might work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
Animals bite and bully their kids way more than we do. They would not survive othewise.
I totally agree with the physical versus emotional stuff. A stinging slap on the bottom is way preferable to 10 minutes of being humiliated and a day of trying to get over it.

---

Animals don't have language. If you watch a cat with kittens, you will notice she doesn't bite them. What mama cat normally does is pin an errant kitten down for a few moments. It's something I've used with my cats and it's much more effective than doing something painful. Dogs may nip slightly, but not painfully and there is more body language than actual punishment. I don't know where you get the idea that animals punish their young. Certainly not the way we humans do.

Again, humiliation is not the default if you don't spank. Being spanked is humiliating, too. You get both sides.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
I also have to wonder: if you believe you deserved to be hit by your parents, what're the chances you're going to rationalize being hit by your partner later in life the same way?

---

...or sending your partner to his room if you don’t like the way he is behaving.

I mean, really. Children are not “miniature adults”. Just because children are treated a certain way (and made to do certain things they absolutely don’t want to do and made to stop doing certain things they absolutely want to do) doesn’t mean it’s “wrong” simply because you wouldn’t expect to treat an adult the same way.

That’s a poor argument.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:

I also have to wonder: if you believe you deserved to be hit by your parents, what're the chances you're going to rationalize being hit by your partner later in life the same way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

In my case, 0.

---

Good for you, you'd be the negative instance. As am I.

Not everyone else is.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
Good for you, you'd be the negative instance. As am I.

Not everyone else is.

---

You may have missed my comments above on the Joan Durrant website that N.Beltov linked us to.

quote:

---

Research has identified a number of negative outcomes of physical discipline, including higher rates of antisocial behavior, aggression toward peers and family members (including child and spousal abuse as adults), and psychological disturbances.

---

ETA: Grabbed the wrong link, one of the pitfalls of babbling and working at the same time. Here is the correct one.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

“Research has identified a number of negative outcomes of physical discipline, including higher rates of antisocial behavior, aggression toward peers and family members (including child and spousal abuse as adults), and psychological disturbances.”

Where’s the research that supports that claim? Or, do you simply accept this assertion at face-value because in comports with your prior presumptions?

Not even being a research statistician, I know enough about statistics to know that, as in the earlier site that N.Beltov linked us to, making claims like “19% of abused children suffer from depression and anxiety” tells us nothing. And, people who believe this tells them something lack even a rudimentary understanding of elementary statistics.

Even if we were to assume that there is a link between corporal punishment and future violent tendencies, there is no differentiation between corporate punishment that is composed of violent beatings, on the one hand, and corporal punishment that is composed of a rare swat on the behind, on the other hand. If you fail to make that differentiation, you have zero support for a conclusion that: “Even a rare swat on the behind leads to increased violent tendencies by those children after they become adults,” which is essentially what you are arguing.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

I trust the research more than your personal views. You have shown no research that shows there is any benefit to hitting children but you want the right to hit children because you aren't convinced it does enough harm to be banned. I think we should allow a little lead in our toys because most children don't get harmed by the toys that contain low levels of lead. I'll bet not even 19% of the children who come in contact with those kinds of substances will have nay adverse effects. A minor problem compared to poor children not having any toys because they are too expensive and their parents can only afford the cheap ones. The poor children will be physiologically impaired if we don't allow their parents to buy cheap toys.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
The reason I don't want to see a simple spank become illegal isn't because I believe in spanking kids. I definitely don't. But I think the practice is so widespread (even a lot of parents who don't believe in it lose it once in a while and do it either out of anger or because they feel like they've tried everything else) that making it illegal will criminalize everyone instead of teaching them better child-rearing techniques.

---

Great post Michelle. You can bet that a "law" like this will be used disproportionately against immigrants with more "old-fashioned" and less of the modern, fashionable child rearing techniques. One of the reasons why a light bum-swat is so common in so many cultures is that it is a time-tested truth that the bum is able to take a smack without sustaining physical damage. The practice is not even in the same league as caning, shaking and belting which are already prohibited by our laws.

I don't spank either. Still I believe that emotional damage, IMO, most often comes from what comes out of a parent's mouth.

quote:

---

Why is the burden of proof on someone who says you shouldn't beat your kids? Why is the default position corporal punishment?

---

So, what would a parent who wishes to discipline a youth have to do? Get a court order granting permission to spank?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I trust the research more than your personal views.

---

Of course you do. It “supports” your preconceptions and biases.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
You have shown no research that shows there is any benefit to hitting children but you want the right to hit children because you aren't convinced it does enough harm to be banned.

---

I’m not arguing about the benefits of spanking a kid (it may or may not have long-term benefits). I’m questioning the dire, end-of-the-world claims that anti-spanking advocates are asserting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I think we should allow a little lead in our toys because most children don't get harmed by the toys that contain low levels of lead. I'll bet not even 19% of the children who come in contact with those kinds of substances will have nay adverse effects.

---

This statement exposes your misunderstanding of the elementary point I’m making about statistics. So, let me explain it another way...

If you say X action causes 20% of those acted upon to exhibit antisocial behavior Y, one of the most relevant questions is: What percentage of the average person exhibits that same antisocial behavior? If it’s about 20%, then the claim that X action causes 20% to exhibit antisocial behavior Y is false (unless, of course, X action is applied to every single person and there are no other variables that may cause antisocial behavior Y).

That is what I was saying.

Now, you turn around and say this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I think we should allow a little lead in our toys because most children don't get harmed by the toys that contain low levels of lead. I'll bet not even 19% of the children who come in contact with those kinds of substances will have nay adverse effects.

---

The point isn’t that “only” 19% suffer adverse effects of lead (or that only 20% exhibit antisocial behavior Y) and, therefore, it is okay. The point is: What causes the adverse effects (or the antisocial behavior). It’s clear that eating paint with lead causes adverse effects (and it would be of concern whether we're talking about 5%, 19% or 80% of children). What I’m saying is that it is not clear that a rare swat on the behind causes negative antisocial behaviors.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Okay, even with your revised link, we are given nothing but a conclusion.

Even if we were to assume that there is a link between corporal punishment and future violent tendencies, there is no differentiation between corporate punishment that is composed of violent beatings, on the one hand, and corporal punishment that is composed of a rare swat on the behind, on the other hand. If you fail to make that differentiation, you have zero support for a conclusion that: “Even a rare swat on the behind leads to increased violent tendencies by those children after they become adults,” which is essentially what you are arguing.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

So we've gone from spanking to "a rare swat on the behind". Your position seems... fluid.

As N. Beltov's post pointed out:

quote:

---

The legal provision forms part of Sweden's family (civil) law. But its purpose is to emphasise beyond doubt that the criminal code on assault covers physical punishment, although trivial offences remain unpunished just as trivial assaults between adults are not prosecutable.

---

It would seem that your "rare swat on the behind" is, while reprehensible and totally ineffective, safe to do.

The thing is, any kind of discipline technique is ineffective unless it is used consistently. So the majority of cases where the "rare swat on the behind" is used are for the sole purpose of making the parent feel better. Doesn't teach the kid anything.

There are also some interesting studies out there supporting that anti-social behaviour is increased, rather than decreased, by corporal punishment as a disciplinary tool.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

So, what would a parent who wishes to discipline a youth have to do? Get a court order granting permission to spank?

If the "default" position is no spanking, then presumably everyone doing it is committing an offence. So, apparently some legal procedure would be required for an exemption, or for exoneration?

---

No, they need to learn how to use their heads instead of their hands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

So, what would a parent who wishes to discipline a youth have to do? Get a court order granting permission to spank?

If the "default" position is no spanking, then presumably everyone doing it is committing an offence. So, apparently some legal procedure would be required for an exemption, or for exoneration?

---

I would love to see any literature that says there is any possible positive effect from spanking a "youth"

At least the rest of the posters have contained themselves with trying to make a case for getting a young child's attention with a swat on the bum. Spanking a youth is an absurd idea. Come here my 13 year daughter I want to spank your bottom because you posted on Facebook and I think Facebook is unhealthy for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I think this is more about whether children have any independent rights or whether their parents are the only ones with rights including the right to hit children at the parents discretion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I think there’s a legitimate debate about spanking. But, fundamentally, what I have a problem with are those anti-spanking advocates who are willing to jump directly from speculation (that spanking is harmful) to criminalization.

---

It's not speculation. Much of the research into spanking as a parenting technique supports the detrimental effects, while there is precious little (if any) support for its speculated positive effects.

Go look it up, already.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

Hitting children has been proven to have negative outcomes and to be ineffective. Its the violence I don't like and the state condoning violence is not appropriate. Is it okay to hit anyone else in your world or only children who can't fight back?

Having raised a son who didn't listen to anything I said and would do exactly what he wanted to when he wanted to even if potentially harmful I understand that parenting can be a job that requires constant vigilance. People hit instead of intervening in less violent ways because of emotion and expediency.

Like I said before, children are not “miniature adults” with all of the rights of adults.

If a five year old is playing inappropriately with other kids, a parent may say, “I’ve told you already that you can’t throw sand at the other kids! So, you’re going to sit here [away from the other children] until you learn to behave!”

Now, I think the state should require that parent to (1) prove that the positive effects of such action outweigh the humiliation that child will likely feel (and the negative psychological damage that humiliation will likely cause that child to suffer well into adulthood) and (2) fully justify the fact that the child’s right to freedom of moment—and right to freedom of association—has been severely restricted, because he may want to unlawfully confine other adults when he becomes an adult, too.

Better yet, I think that children should—at the moment of birth—be removed from parents entirely and raised by perfect, government-operated institutions where they will grow up to be perfect adults.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Hitting children has been proven to have negative outcomes and to be ineffective.

---

I have to call “bullshit” on that. Where is the research?

The word “hitting” is broad. It includes an occasional swat on the bum and a fist in the face. Show me research that proves that an occasional swat on the bum is negative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Its the violence I don't like

---

That’s exactly it. You want everyone to adopt your definition of “violence” and to criminalize it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
As Pogo touches on, there is a long list of things that parents do to their children that adults cannot, legally, do to another adult.

Like I said before, children are not “miniature adults” with all of the rights of adults.

If a five year old is playing inappropriately with other kids, a parent may say, “I’ve told you already that you can’t throw sand at the other kids! So, you’re going to sit here [away from the other children] until you learn to behave!”

Now, I think the state should require that parent to (1) prove that the positive effects of such action outweigh the humiliation that child will likely feel (and the negative psychological damage that humiliation will likely cause that child to suffer well into adulthood) and (2) fully justify the fact that the child’s right to freedom of moment—and right to freedom of association—has been severely restricted, because he may want to unlawfully confine other adults when he becomes an adult, too.

Better yet, I think that children should—at the moment of birth—be removed from parents entirely and raised by perfect, government-operated institutions where they will grow up to be perfect adults.

Or, we could focus on real child abuse (physical and emotional) and leave spanking to the discretion of parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
You say that society should have no say in the raising of children

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
...we could focus on real child abuse (physical and emotional)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The word “hitting” is broad. It includes an occasional swat on the bum and a fist in the face. Show me research that proves that an occasional swat on the bum is negative.

---

Ah, the goal posts moved once again...

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Pogo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
Double checking my fallacies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Hitting children has been proven to have negative outcomes and to be ineffective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
No evidence worth mentioning has been posted to that regard.

---

You know, I've taken some statistics and have a passing knowledge of the subject but I'm tempted to undertake a more rigorous study of the subject. There's so much bullshit passed on as "evidence" for this or that that it would be nice to be able to clearly identify that bullshit as such.

In this case, the references to "evidence", and the use of statistics to "prove" that a swat in the bum is highly detrimental, in this thread have been easy to debunk, even by me.

I think there are a lot of sociology "studies" that fall into the total bullshit category. To a serious student of a question or a line of inquiry, those studies completely undermine the credibility of the arguments they are attempting to cobble together.

I mean a statement like: "19% of those who have received corporal punishment suffer from depression or anxiety" means nothing. Yet, many people look at something like that and excitedly exclaim: "See, spanking is bad!!!"

I've not had the time to read it thoroughly but several things jumped out at me, one of which was the author's admission that no one has proven a causal link between corporal punishment and any negative or positive behavioral changes or emotional impacts from corporal punishment, with one (unsurprising) exception. That one exception is that spanking is shown to provide the positive result of "immediate compliance" with a desired behavioral change in a child.

Another thing that I found interesting was her use of the word "association", as in "there is an association between corporal punishment and result X". I don't know how "association" is qualitatively different than "correlation".

Critically, and this is something I've been beating on (pun intended) in this thread, is her differentiation between corporal punishment and physical abuse. She basically said that in evaluating any positive or negative effects of corporal punishment, one must necessarily isolate acts of corporal punishment from acts of physical abuse before drawing any meaningful conclusions about corporate punishment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Again, the reasoning here is that corporal punishment should be the default position, and that those against spanking should prove why I shouldn't be allowed to hit my kids. That is poor logic. Prove to me why you should be able to use physical violence as a disciplinary measure. If you can't, it's off the table.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Are you capable of making simple distinctions between "violence" and "non-violence"?

---

A swat on the behind is "violence" only in a kumbaiya sort of way.

The opposition to spanking (which is an act of violence necessarily, despite your dismissal) comes from the idea that there is another way to procure compliance that doesn't instill in the mind that violence is a way to solve conflicts (even 'friendly' violence).

Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about the spanking law. I don't have kids, but I was spanked as a kid, sometimes with what bordered on abuse, and I know what effect it had on me. All I can say is I hope I never resort to violence to discipline my children.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
....but I do think there is evidence to support what I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Are you asking for sociology articles? I think you misunderstood. Read again, this time for comprehension.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about the spanking law. I don't have kids, but I was spanked as a kid, sometimes with what bordered on abuse, and I know what effect it had on me. All I can say is I hope I never resort to violence to discipline my children.

---

I was too, it wasn't wonderful, but I somehow doubt that putting my parents in jail and sending me to bounce around between foster parents would have made things better.

It wasn't the highlite of my childhood, maybe I'd be better off without it, and it's not what I want to do with my kids later on. But a lot of things fit in that category, and relative to some other things I remember it was quite trivial. There were more serious problems, and if the government decides to intervene more in child development, they would be more productive. The verbal and psychological abuse from teachers, for example, was far more severe than any slap on the shoulder. One example among the many.

[ 25 June 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Nope not many people willing to stand up and be counted in the "I can't control my children's behaviour so I hit them instead" crowd. Only people who say I don't really want to do it but please let me have the RIGHT to hit my children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
What are your feelings about solitary confinement (timeouts), verbal assaults and public humiliation. Shouldn't they first have to prove their legitimacy before becoming legal?

---

"Verbal assaults" are not illegal to do to adults if what you're talking about is yelling or making demands in a loud voice. Threatening to assault them is illegal, of course. But then, if spanking was made illegal, then presumably, threatening your child with spanking would also not be sanctioned. Although in practice, as kropotkin says, adults generally aren't arrested for saying, "Shut up or I'll smack you."

"Public humiliation"? That's not illegal for an adult to do to an adult either. It's not illegal for me, for instance, to walk up to you in a park and say to you, in front of a crowd, "Why did you just dump your garbage on the ground instead of putting it in the garbage? You should know better! Pick that up right now and put it in the garbage!" That's not illegal.

Solitary confinement - that one's more tricky, and there I agree with you, that if they simply took out that clause that said that the exception to the "unlawful confinement" law is parents who do it to their kids as reasonable corrective action (although there IS a such thing as illegally confining a child and crossing the line into abuse), then there would be a problem.

But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. You CAN say that assaulting a child is illegal, but it is not illegal to confine a child for corrective reasons. It's not that complicated, really.

But you asked our feelings about confining a child. My answer is this: I find that, when that sort of action is called for, it's much less effective to send my son to his room (because if he's really pissed off, he just walks out of his room and then you have to escalate the punishment to save face, and that's not helpful). But I've done that before, made him go to his room, and I've physically carried him there, with him kicking and screaming the whole way. It wasn't much fun!

I find it more effective to give him a timeout from something he likes to do, like watching television or playing on the computer. The only time now that I make him go to his room and stay there is when he's whining or crying for attention, to try to get him out of the habit of doing it in front of me as a way of coercing me into giving in.

For instance, if I don't let him watch television, he will start this fake-crying or almost keening, right in my face, and work himself into real crying. In those cases, I tell him that he needs to go to his room and finish crying there with the door closed, and when he's ready to stop, he can come back out.

So yes, I can see the need for such a clause for "unlawful confinement" where you make an exception for parents who are correcting their children. But just because you need it for that, doesn't mean you need the same exception for assaulting children.

I really do believe that hitting children is assaulting them. But I think it's such a common practice, and that the current structures in place are so racist and classist and biased, that a law like this will simply be used by teachers and CAS and police to ONLY go after families they'd like to target for other reasons. It will NEVER be used to correct white, middle class parents. Never. I don't think that an occasional spanking is harmful ENOUGH to give the authorities such an opening.

[ 25 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]