Corporal punishment

No, no, no, no, no, no, nooooooooo.

That's not what I was doing.

 

Sorry, Dick, maybe I misinterpreted you.

 

I meant the opposite. We would never, ever, ever think that corporal punishment would be an OK choice for adults in prison. It's a non-starter. It sounds ridiculous to even say it. But we - or at least some of us - think it's OK for the most mentally, emotionally, and physically vulnerable members of our society. I was thinking aloud about how we reconcile that.

 

Which was already explained to you -- because you have to approach disciplining a child differently than you would approach disciplining an adult. It is a horrible comparison.

The part about them being physically vulnerable is irrelevant. We're not talking about caning or punching children here. We're talking about a spank, or some other corporal punishment that is meant to get their attention, not cause any real damage.

That physical vulnerability is also one reason that it is so essential that we find some manner of effective discipline. With the youngest of children --ones who are still learning to communicate and incapable of making rational decisions -- sometimes that's what it takes to keep them from harm. If a spank on the tush helps keep little Johnny from putting himself in danger, so be it.

Yes, they are mentally and emotionally vulnerable -- one more reason that finding an effective means of discipline is vital.

Do I think the idea of corporal punishment in school is a terrible one? Absolutely. But to dismiss it as a disciplinary tool in any situation and at any age is short-sighted at best. It may not be necessary for every child, but for some, it most definitely is.

 

I don't understand why this couldn't be your first answer.

One of my guiding philosophies is that no intuition should go unexplored, and that if something is "obvious," then we should be able to articulate why - and should. In this kind of case, there are plenty of times when there are parallels between two seemingly unrelated situations. Yes, there is most likely a difference in the way children react to corporal punishment and the way an adult would. Which is something I noted in multiple ways in the post that set you off in the first place. But I wanted to tease that out all the way. If everything is so "obvious," then why do we even have a field of behavioral psychology in the first place? I can't help but find it interesting that corporal punishment is a non-starter in one case (adults), but considered viable in another (children).

This is an even more interesting dichotomy when you consider that many other nations - and 30 states - have decided that corporal punishment is not effective in children, or certainly that the burden does not outweigh the benefit. So a minority of states and a minority of nations agree with you: That children are "different" in some significant way from adults that makes corporal punishment a viable and productive option, whereas it would not be for adult offenders. In other words, in 2011, I am the one in the majority here, not you. The burden is on you to reconcile the difference. Not on me. Which made it a perfectly valid issue to raise.

 

He picked the wrench, my good man. And that movie is awesome.
I went to a catholic school where my knuckles felt the wrath of many a nun's ruler. Also, one of those evil women was notorious for pinching the top of the shoulder near the neck and squeezing very hard in a way that would induce much, much pain. At home my father, who was a technical sergeant in the Marines, spanked me about five times in my life...and each time I deserved it. He was a badass (still is at 66) and let me know, in no uncertain terms, why he was punishing me and he never got carried away with it or actually HURT me. Yes, it didn't feel good but there is a difference between punishing a kid and hurting a kid...and that's an important distinction here.

There were different results. The crazy nuns at school only made me hate going to school because you would be punished for the smallest of offenses (like hitting a baseball over the fence and into the street that ran next to the playground) without a second thought. Made me worry more about staying out of the way of the nuns and less on what they were supposed to be teaching me. At home, however, when my father would discipline me I knew I deserved it and learned from my mistakes because, hell, although it is cliche I know it hurt my father as much or more than it hurt me to spank me. As a parent I now understand why...you would die for your kids and never want them to feel one bit of pain. But it is very necessary, and when my three-year-old went running out of the front of the store and into the parking lot, without stopping to look to see if any cars were coming, he got the spanking he deserved. And it sucked to do it. But he learned his lesson.

 

No, the majority does NOT believe that the same methods used to discipline children should be used for adults. Nice try at twisting things, but reality is getting in your way there.

Try disciplining your kids the way you would an adult. Please. Just be sure to report the utter failure when you're done, ok?

 

This thread should be caned.

 

This.

The simple question always should be something along the lines of "since the changes, have things gotten better or worse." And since schools have lost the ability to discipline the kids, the schools have become nothing but warehouses for disfunction.

 

What is a "timeout" then, except adult punitive measures applied to children?

You obviously have no interest in defending your point of view. It's "obvious" to you, so it should be "obvious" to everyone, I guess.

 

I think there are qualitative differences between a "timeout" and the punishment meted out to adult criminals. In our household, a timeout served two purposes: 1) it let the kid get himself/herself back under control; and 2) it let the parent get his/her emotions under control. Plus, the timeout duration remains constant across all infractions -- as I recall, it was one minute per year (e.g., eight minutes for an 8-yeard-old). All of this is to say that, on the surface, that might be a viable comparison, but it's really not.

I am a father of three and have been blessed with three kids who have rarely entered the territory in which corporal punishment would even be considered. To repeat: I have been blessed; not everyone has had as attractive a hand as I have been dealt. It's still my contention, however, that in almost every case, there are just-as-effective options within reach. They may not be as convenient, they may require some thought, but they're not as destructive (to either the punished or the punisher).

 

This sounds like a difference in degree, though, rather than kind. Another parent might choose to base duration on level of infraction. And, of course, recent "criminal" history (i.e. The "timeout" is lengthened because it is the third timeout of the day). At this point, it is starting to sound very familiar.

In other words, I think the principle carries: Incarceration as a punitive and utilitarian (i.e. used as a deterrent) response to bad behavior.