end_corporal_punishment sans nom "The time has come to break bad habits that tend to be passed from one generation to the next. Legal and other affirmative action should be taken against all physical punishment and deliberate humiliation of children. Their rights apply as much within the family as outside". General Rapporteur's Concluding statement at a Council of Europe conference on "Evolution of the role of children in family life", 1994 - http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/ 040211 ... sans nom http://www.repeal43.org/ 040211 ... sans nom http://www.neverhitachild.org/ 040211 ... sans nom http://www.nospank.net/ 040211 ... pilgrim This should be set aside for Consenting Adults in the Privacy of their Dungeons. Much too Good to be just for the Young. 040212 ... monee everybody_love 050101 ... monee Section 43 of the Criminal Code Correction of Child by Force "Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. R.S.C., 1985, c .C-4 Violence as Correction Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a defense to assault that justifies violence against children by teachers and parents in the name of correction. It allows severe spanking, slapping and striking with belts and other objects. Section 43 is harmful and contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It has no place in a democratic society that values children. The January 30, 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of section 43 limited the scope of this defence but did not end it. Limiting legal approval of hitting children by restricting hitting to certain ages, degrees of force, and parts of the body is not the solution to the problems posed by this nineteenth century defence to assault. Legal approval for any hitting of children is harmful and unjust. The wording of section 43 of the Code justifying “reasonable” corporal punishment will remain the same unless and until it is changed by Parliament. Those who use or support corporal punishment will continue to judge its acceptability by their own subjective standards of what is “reasonable”. See Constitutional Challenge, Comment on Supreme Court Decision for our view of the decision and its implications. We will continue to advocate complete repeal of this defence to assaults on children for “correction”. Our Aim Our aim is to persuade Parliament and the Courts to end this harmful and unjust defence. We invite you to review the information on our web site and join us in advocating the repeal of section 43." http://www.repeal43.org/ .. Historical Background to Section 43 "Section 43 of the Criminal Code is a defence to assault that justifies the use of reasonable force for the correction of children by teachers, parents or persons standing in the place of parents. It is based on the idea that corporal punishment is morally right and necessary for training and educating children in the home and school. This idea has its roots in the past when corporal punishment of adults as well as children was legal and commonly prescribed for offences ranging from minor misdemeanors to serious crimes. Flogging, whipping and other methods of inflicting pain were routinely used in prisons, mental institutions and the military in the name of order and discipline. Flogging in the British navy was only abolished in1879 and in the British army in 1881. Until1972, our Criminal Code allowed persons convicted of certain offences to be whipped with a cat-o'-nine tails. Corporal punishment of wives, servants and apprentices Corporal punishment for keeping order and discipline in the home, as in society at large, also has its roots in the past. "Domestic chastisement" as it was called in English common law allowed a husband to correct his wife by "moderate" beating on the basis that he was responsible for her behaviour. It allowed corporal punishment of domestic servants by their employers and of apprentices by their masters. Such domestic chastisement was legal and commonplace until the nineteenth century. Corporal punishment of children By the19th century, English common law had evolved to limit the corporal punishment of children. This evolution was confirmed by the 1860 decision in R. v. Hopley in which Lord Chief Justice Cockburn held that corporal punishment of children must be limited to “moderate” chastisement. In Hopley, a schoolmaster had beaten a 14-year-old boy so severely that the boy died of exhaustion from loss of blood. The schoolmaster had written the father and proposed beating the boy “to subdue his obstinacy by chastising him severely…if necessary, again and again…” The father had agreed. The schoolmaster was convicted of manslaughter for using excessive force and imprisoned for 4 years. In 1933, the common law right of a teacher, parent or other person in charge of a child to administer punishment was confirmed by legislation in s. 1 (7) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. In the 1935 edition of Halsbury’s Laws of England, the common law on the discipline of children is described in the following words: A father has the right to restrain and control the acts and conduct of his infant child, and to inflict correction on the child for disobedience to his orders by personal and other chastisements to a reasonable extent. He may delegate this right to a tutor, or schoolmaster, or other person. Judges applied this standard in the rare instances where assault charges were laid against parents or teachers. Reasonable corporal punishment continued to be considered an essential part of learning, discipline and moral development and was common in all classes of society. It included harsh beatings in the home and school, including ritualized beatings in the presence of other pupils at private schools for Britain's elite. This became the model for other British and colonial schools - many of which continued this kind of discipline into the 1950s. When our criminal law was codified in 1892, this English common law defence was simply incorporated as part of our first Criminal Code. It has remained virtually unchanged by our Parliament since then. In 2001, section 44 of the Code that justified the use of reasonable force by the master of a ship for "maintaining good order and discipline" was repealed. The repeal came into effect in Dec/03. Children are now the only remaining class of Canadians that can still be legally assaulted in the name of correction. The time has come to eliminate this defence altogether Judicial Attitudes to Corporal Punishment The attitudes of Canadian courts toward the corporal punishment of children is indicated by the comments of judges in acquitting parents and teachers of assault under section 43. Comment from 1927 and 1951 Anatomy specially designed for punishment A Saskatchewan court in R. v. Metcalfe(1927) acquitted a school principal for striking a 10 year old girl on the buttocks with sufficient force to leave black and blue welts ...on that part of her anatomy which seems to have been specially designed by nature for the receipt of corporal punishment. Hitting with iron bar and kicking to the ground go too far The court in the Metcalfecase could find no decision in which a teacher had been found guilty of assault unless the assault was with a dangerous weapon such as an iron bar etc. or where the pupil is kicked to the ground or otherwise ill treated. Legal scholars from earlier centuries were quoted on the salutary effects of corporal punishment. Contusions and bruises not unreasonable The Quebec Court of Appeal in Campeau v. The King(1951) explained section 43 by stating: That the punishment naturally may cause pain hardly needs to be stated; otherwise its whole purpose would be lost...the mere fact that the children disciplined suffered contusions and bruises is not in itself proof of exercise of undue force. Comment from 1990 to 2001 The following comments were made by judges in recent acquittals of parents and teachers when attempting to determine the meaning of "reasonable" in section 43. Punishment causing bruises is not necessarily excessive R. v. Wheeler,Yukon, 1990 Striking with a belt is perhaps a little distasteful but is authorized by law R. v. L.A.K.,Newfoundland, 1992 Kicking and hitting an eight year old is well within the range of generally accepted punishment - mild compared to what I received as a child R.v. K. (M),Manitoba, 1993 One blow only - no permanent injury R. v. Condon,Newfoundland, 1993, (teacher) Teacher's action may be disgraceful but it was not excessive R. v. Bouillon,Quebec, 1993 (teacher) Life and limb not endangered by using a belt R. v. Atkinson,Manitoba, 1994 Slap to head not per se excessive force R. v. D.W.,Alberta, 1995 A hard body blow was necessary for a submissive response R. v. Pickard,Quebec, 1995 Community standards may not be relevant in judging force R. v. Peterson,Ontario, 1995 Reasonable standard of force is elusive R. v. J. (O),Ontario, 1996 Instilling respect even through fear is acceptable R. v. Wetmore,New Brunswick, 1996 (teacher) Injured dignity has corrective potential R. v. Spenard,Ontario, 1996 (teacher) Raising welts does not amount to bodily harm R. v. N.S.,Ontario, 1999 Slap had a salutary effect on behaviour R. v. Park,Newfoundland, 1999 (teacher) Section 43 does not restrict discipline to what is appropriate or proportional or that it must be a last resort R. v. Bell,Ontario, 2001 Case law recognizes and Parliament apparently sees using a belt as acceptable punishment, (judge expressed his personal view that using a belt is always unreasonable) R. v. C. (G),Newfoundland, 2001" http://www.repeal43.org/the-law.html . 050101 ... . It is a disgusting and slavish treatment which would certainly be regarded as an insult if it were inflicted on adults... And consider how shameful, how dangerous to modesty are the effects produced by the pain or fear of the victims. This feeling of shame cripples and unmans the spirit, making it flee from and detest the light of day... Quintilian, A.D. 35-95 -http://www.nospank.net .. Slavish discipline makes a slavish temper If severity carry’d to the highest pitch does prevail, and works a cure upon the present unruly distemper, it often brings in the room of it a worse and more dangerous disease, by breaking the mind; and then, in the place of a disorderly young fellow, you have a low spirited moap’d creature, who, however with his unnatural sobriety he may please silly people, who commend tame unactive children, because they make no noise, nor give them any trouble; yet at last,will probably prove as uncomfortable a thing to his friends, as he will be all his life an useless thing to himself and others...Beating them, and all other sorts of slavish and corporal punishments, are not the discipline fit to be used in the education of those we would have wise, good, and ingenuous men. -John Locke From “Some Thoughts Concerning Education,” 1692 .. "Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances, except literal physical self-defense, should be hit." - Murray A. Straus "Hitting is wrong. To hit someone is a violent thing to do. Violence is a thing one person does to make another person hurt. We want to treat children in ways that do not hurt or harm them. We can. We want to be kind and gentle, not harsh. We want to be tender, merciful and compassionate. There is no situation that changes hitting from a wrong thing into a right thing. There is no excuse that magically makes hurting children kind or merciful. This is confusing, though, isn't it? A law can say that it is all right to do a wrong thing to stop a wrong thing. Hitting, however, is nearly never a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. Defense from physical attack, for example, might be less wrong than the physical attack itself. The law sets a limit, though, for this rare situation. The law limits a defense to interrupting or ending the attack upon the physical safety of a person. The laws that also allow the physical punishment of children do not magically make it a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. They only allow it. Hitting children is not tender or compassionate treatment. Hitting children is not better than treating them in ways that do not hurt. We will be kinder, gentler and less violent when we all stop hitting children. Most of us do not say to our children, "hitting is right" or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe that it is a good thing to hit people. Most of us deny that we are 'in favor' of hitting children. However, most of us behave as if it is a good thing to do. Most of us are in favor of spanking and physical punishment. And the law attempts to make a physical attack on a child's body a thing that is all right to do. The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for children. How can they tell what it means? Parents are their example of what is right and good. Parents' behavior is their example of what love looks and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that it is all right to hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants to control others, it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say. For children whose parents tell them that hitting is wrong, hitting might also seem to say that it is all right to do something that is wrong. It certainly does not show or say to the child what behavior is wanted. There is no obligation or duty to hit children. No one of us can show that anything bad happens if we do not hit children. No one can show that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them. When people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just uncomfortable with the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet experienced? They do not really know that anything bad will happen. It is enough for them, it seems, that they believe that something bad will happen. Since people usually do not really think about many of their beliefs, it is hard to use reason to help them to be unafraid. But there is no evidence that a child whose parents model appropriate behavior, clearly and unambiguously love and nurture that child, diligently encourage and positively reinforce desired behavior, using reason and persuasion while consistently communicating and enforcing limits, and demonstrating a rational process for problem solving, will not "turn out" as well, if not better, than any child held up as the supposed example of the benefit of spanking her or him. So we have no duty, contract or promise to hit. There is no other social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children. We can, however, certainly count upon our friends and family to say that there is a need for a 'good spanking'. They will tell us that spanking people during their childhood is the cure for society's ills. They carry tradition and myth, as humans always have, but that does not mean that they know the truth. Social, legal and moral ties bind us to feed, clothe and shelter our dependent children. We should teach them to behave well in public and to contribute according to their capacity. We should help them to find happiness doing these things. If we do our job well, they become willing and able to give their best to society. There is no need to hit children in order to do our social, legal and moral duty. For example, accepting the responsibilities for a dependent adult might become our social and moral duty. But, we would have no legal right to hit that adult in order to do this duty. As fully human as any adult of our species, children, therefore, should be entitled to the same special care and protection any adult enjoys. Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our minor children. Yet, there seems to be some mistaken, unfounded 'sense of duty' to do it. I believe that this 'sense' may be the result of a self-conscious feeling that other parents in our family or social group know better than we what we should do. As children, we saw our parents and other adults do things that we remember as right and good. Spanking children is one of those things that we memorized. We copy that behavior with our own children. We think, therefore, that we are surely being a good and proper parent. We are following tradition. However, tradition and morality are separate standards. Hitting children does not make it easier for us to do our social, legal or moral duty as parents. Hitting them may only offer us a sort of shortcut when speed is a higher priority. But it is ironic that hitting them may actually make it easier, instead, for our children to realize dreadful outcomes; the literal opposites of our goals. The result of spanking is our children's fear and resentment of us. Research indicates that several, serious negative side effects may be associated with its use. So, parents' satisfaction with spanking could be related to some other need, independent of the child. Murray Straus is author of Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families. He wrote, "The most basic step in eliminating corporal punishment is for parent educators, psychologists, and pediatricians to make a simple and unambiguous statement..." That is the statement I have quoted at the top of this page. I agree with it. I like the statement. Most people think that it is too strong. Some have felt that the phrase "except literal physical self-defense" seems to give permission to spanking parents. Professor Straus also suggests that we say, without qualification, "A child should never be hit." I believe that after the briefer proscription, though, one must prepare to respond to the certain question, "Well, what about the circumstance: self-defense?" But, self-defense is not at all common among the routine responses to our children's behavior. Defense of self indeed! Professor Straus explained to me that he too could recognize that there is a certain danger in adding "except for self-defense." He thought that it was, in part, his training in criminology that led to his writing it the way he did. He explained that many people misunderstand the legal concept of self defense and think that retaliation is self defense. Of course, self defense becomes a legal justification for assault only if the person is in danger of serious injury or death and cannot get away. He said, "If a child hits a parent, the parent can and should restrain the child if it continues, but she or he should never hit back." In his own opinion, the parents should make a big deal out of any instance of a child hitting. It should be treated as a moral outrage and something to never be done again. He said, "Hitting back is not self defense." Legally, an adult who is attacked and hits back may also be guilty of assault. It concerns me that the quotation risks deafening listeners so that they hear nothing that follows it. I live and write, and 'mingle' among the people of Arkansas, USA. It is a spank-happy place where it is "open season" on children--in their homes as well as in their schools. Our children stand a one-in-ten chance of being hit by an adult at school, so Arkansas ranks second only to Mississippi as the "worst" among the ten worst school-paddling states. Still, "never hit" is the phrase to which most of the provoked readers respond. Realistically, the people I engage all want to know "What if you're attacked or assaulted by a juvenile delinquent?" I believe that there has to be an exception. There almost always is. Perhaps 'except' is permissive. This exception, of course, is always some extreme, bizarre and unlikely occurrence. In such a crisis, however, people do what they are going to do for no certain reason. Anticipation rarely has anything to do with the outcome. Besides, most parents really are not parenting armed juveniles. How realistic is it to expect to have to hit your child to save your life or to protect yourself from serious physical threat -- literal, physical, self-defense? LITERAL, PHYSICAL, SELF-DEFENSE ... This exception only barely warrants noting. So, suppose my inconsistency is that I also agree with the "too soft" critics. I have been around a lot of violence, threats of serious harm to my family, our property and myself. I do not hit any children. I worked in child welfare (child protective services, foster care, adoptions, interstate transfers) in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area; that is, nearly all of Maricopa County, Arizona. I worked the pediatric outpatient clinic at the indigent care hospital in Phoenix and conducted interviews with child abusers (some suicidal and homicidal). I worked nearly ten years in the pediatric department and the ER of a large hospital here in Little Rock. I am not through with living so it would be disingenuous to make a statement so absolute that I could not realistically expect to live by it. But I can state, unambiguously, that hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances should be hit." Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW NeverHitAChild.ORG Little Rock, AR . 050101 ... tilt nose bank.org 050215 ... Ft LoT This type of blanket reasoning doesn't apply to everyone and I can't stand the thought of Government entering our homes... as far as I'm aware we still posses the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property (among others). Not to say that a child (of which I have none, nor do I wish for a very long time) is property but when raising one it is assumed that the caregiver is well meaning until demonstrated otherwise, NOT the other way around. Just as our judicial system is founded around the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty so it is with our citizenry, we assume until otherwise proven that we are all upstanding and well meaning. As far as corporal punishment, I am against it in schools only because I believe that violent correction to teens and pre-teens serves no end other than to give them something to rebel against. However, I find nothing wrong inherently with spanking and especially with embarrassment as a form of punishment in children from ages 2-10. Obviously this cannot apply to all but as a general rule children in that age range learn, often times, ONLY through painful deterrent. I like to use one of my brothers as an example (I have six siblings ranging in age from 18 – 3 years old of which I am the oldest). My mother told him not to play with the stove when he was five but because he liked turning the flame on he continued doing so whenever she was out of the room. One day he turned the stove on and walked away into another room. My mother came out and found it on and again told him to leave it alone, including punishing him by making him sit in a chair looking at the wall for 15 mins. Another day or two went by and again he was playing with the stove but this time my mom didn’t notice he had turned it on and it ran for an hour or so. When he came back to the stove he started moving the knobs but he couldn’t hear the click of it coming on so he reached his hand into the flame and BOOM! He is taken to the hospital for second degree burns on his palm. Since then he hasn’t played with the stove. I’m sorry but as great as it would be if we as humans were peace loving and all about the greater good… but unfortunately we’re still animals at heart and without a strict hand to keep us all in check we veer off the civilized course. I respect (to some degree) people who see the good in others and expect that everyone will be just as good as they are… idealists… but not everyone is like that. We make regulations, guidelines, laws, etc for most people not for the exceptions and most people need to be shown the pains of their actions in order to grasp why NOT to do them. 050215 ... cocoon I have to say, I agree with the person above me. I was slapped as a child when I misbehavad, and I would have to say I probably deserved it. Funnily enough, it was never my parents who did it, but my older sister. It hasnt affected me in any way, the older sister who did that is now probably my best friend, and I don't think theres anything wrong with smacking your kids if they are misbehaving. Obviously, it only works up until a certain age (I was about 6 or 7 the last time I remember being hit), but I think that if you are a good parent overall, smacking your kids once to get the point across isnt going to scar them for life. 050216 ... . Date: June 26, 2002 IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF DISCIPLINE? "Corporal Punishment Leads to More Immediate Compliant Behavior in Children, But is also Associated with Physical Abuse. Should Parents be Counseled For or Against Spanking? WASHINGTON -- Corporal punishment remains a widely used discipline technique in most American families, but it has also been a subject of controversy within the child development and psychological communities. In a large-scale meta-analysis of 88 studies, psychologist Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff, PhD, of the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University, looked at both positive and negative behaviors in children that were associated with corporal punishment. Her research and commentaries on her work are published in the July issue of Psychological Bulletin, published by the American Psychological Association. While conducting the meta-analysis, which included 62 years of collected data, Gershoff looked for associations between parental use of corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences, including several in childhood (immediate compliance, moral internalization, quality of relationship with parent, and physical abuse from that parent), three in both childhood and adulthood (mental health, aggression, and criminal or antisocial behavior) and one in adulthood alone (abuse of own children or spouse). Gershoff found "strong associations" between corporal punishment and all eleven child behaviors and experiences. Ten of the associations were negative such as with increased child aggression and antisocial behavior. The single desirable association was between corporal punishment and increased immediate compliance on the part of the child. The two largest effect sizes (strongest associations) were immediate compliance by the child and physical abuse of the child by the parent. Gershoff believes that these two strongest associations model the complexity of the debate around corporal punishment. "That these two disparate constructs should show the strongest links to corporal punishment underlines the controversy over this practice. There is general consensus that corporal punishment is effective in getting children to comply immediately while at the same time there is caution from child abuse researchers that corporal punishment by its nature can escalate into physical maltreatment," Gershoff writes. But, Gershoff also cautions that her findings do not imply that all children who experience corporal punishment turn out to be aggressive or delinquent. A variety of situational factors, such as the parent/child relationship, can moderate the effects of corporal punishment. Furthermore, studying the true effects of corporal punishment requires drawing a boundary line between punishment and abuse. This is a difficult thing to do, especially when relying on parents' self-reports of their discipline tactics and interpretations of normative punishment. "The act of corporal punishment itself is different across parents - parents vary in how frequently they use it, how forcefully they administer it, how emotionally aroused they are when they do it, and whether they combine it with other techniques. Each of these qualities of corporal punishment can determine which child-mediated processes are activated, and, in turn, which outcomes may be realized," Gershoff concludes. The meta-analysis also demonstrates that the frequency and severity of the corporal punishment matters. The more often or more harshly a child was hit, the more likely they are to be aggressive or to have mental health problems. While the nature of the analyses prohibits causally linking corporal punishment with the child behaviors, Gershoff also summarizes a large body of literature on parenting that suggests why corporal punishment may actually cause negative outcomes for children. For one, corporal punishment on its own does not teach children right from wrong. Secondly, although it makes children afraid to disobey when parents are present, when parents are not present to administer the punishment those same children will misbehave. In commentary published along with the Gershoff study, George W. Holden, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, writes that Gershoff's findings "reflect the growing body of evidence indicating that corporal punishment does no good and may even cause harm." Holden submits that the psychological community should not be advocating spanking as a discipline tool for parents. In a reply to Gershoff, researchers Diana Baumrind, PhD (Univ. of CA at Berkeley), Robert E. Larzelere, PhD (Nebraska Medical Center), and Philip Cowan, PhD (Univ.of CA at Berkeley), write that because the original studies in Gershoff's meta-analysis included episodes of extreme and excessive physical punishment, her finding is not an evaluation of normative corporal punishment. "The evidence presented in the meta-analysis does not justify a blanket injunction against mild to moderate disciplinary spanking," conclude Baumrind and her team. Baumrind et al. also conclude that "a high association between corporal punishment and physical abuse is not evidence that mild or moderate corporal punishment increases the risk of abuse." Baumrind et al. suggest that those parents whose emotional make-up may cause them to cross the line between appropriate corporal punishment and physical abuse should be counseled not to use corporal punishment as a technique to discipline their children. But, that other parents could use mild to moderate corporal punishment effectively. "The fact that some parents punish excessively and unwisely is not an argument, however, for counseling all parents not to punish at all." In her reply to Baumrind et al., Gershoff states that excessive corporal punishment is more likely to be underreported than overreported and that the possibility of negative effects on children caution against the use of corporal punishment. "Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use," Gershoff writes." http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html . http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bul1284539.pdf - Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review (PDF: 863KB) . http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bul1284602.pdf - Corporal Punishment, Physical Abuse, and the Burden of Proof: Reply to Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowen (2002), Holden (2002), and Parke (2002) (PDF: 456KB) . 050216 ... .nom "...My mother told him not to play with the stove when he was five but because he liked turning the flame on he continued doing so whenever she was out of the room. One day he turned the stove on and walked away into another room. My mother came out and found it on and again told him to leave it alone, including punishing him by making him sit in a chair looking at the wall for 15 mins. Another day or two went by and again he was playing with the stove but this time my mom didn’t notice he had turned it on and it ran for an hour or so. When he came back to the stove he started moving the knobs but he couldn’t hear the click of it coming on so he reached his hand into the flame and BOOM! He is taken to the hospital for second degree burns on his palm. Since then he hasn’t played with the stove..." - Ft Lot, i'm sorry that happened to your brother, but i wonder...how perhaps the scenario could've been different if your brother had been given more explanation as to why it would've been best for him not to play with the stove, or the stove had been kid-proofed. i'm not saying it was your mother's fault,...but i don't know how exactly your example plays here. i do not think making a child sit in a chair looking at a wall for fifteen minutes is a great way to teach a child. if you were implying that 'he should've been given a swat instead, and then he wouldn't've burned his hand', i ask you for your evidence of this...who is to say he wouldn't've burned his hand anyway even if he had gotten a spanking,...how can you, how can anyone, know this,...(if this is what you were saying, i mean)? i think there is a difference between - telling a child not to do something...accompanied by the threat/use of punishment for noncompliance/disobedience,... and - explaining, through educative, gentle as can be, scientific ways,...as children are ever-wanting to know, ever-learning. i am guessing that your brother did not fully know what could happen to him in that situation. i think if he had, he wouldn't've been playing with the stove. i do not think a child who doesn't know how to 'be' around a stove should be around a stove. i think a child at that stage should be kept out of the kitchen unless closely supervised,...unless or until the time/dedication is given to explain/show/make aware to him/her/them the possible dangers of such a thing as a stove (or kitchen in general, and still, then,...supervision. a quick search in google can provide ways to make a kitchen, specifically a stove, a whole lot safer. in all my experience with caring for children i have never felt the need to hit a child. i do not agree with the slap-happy method, nor the go-stand-in-the-corner routine. 050216 ... .nom "i do not think making a child sit in a chair looking at a wall for fifteen minutes is a great way to teach a child": i meant it's not a great way to teach 'why not to play with the stove'. i think there are some instances, say, like when a couple of kids are fighting with eachother, that a time-out can be helpful to get them to calm down and think of their actions, but i think time-outs can be overused by parents/caregivers as well. 050216 ... . "...Corporal punishment: Synonymous with “physical punishment.”." It means the intentional infliction of pain on the body for purposes of punishment or controlling behavior. It includes slapping, spanking, hitting with objects, pinching, shaking, and forcing to stand for long periods of time. Spanking: Hitting with the flat of the hand usually on the buttocks for punishment or for stopping a behavior. In the United States, spanking as punishment has shown a long-term decline. In the l950's, ninety-nine percent of parents supported the use of corporal punishment of children. In recent years that number has fallen. Surveys generally report about fifty percent of parents supporting its use. Studies show that a majority of parents who use corporal punishment feel badly about it and don't think it works to improve behavior. Parents who support spanking often use one of the following arguments: * Spanking is an effective way to manage behavior. * I got hit when I was a kid and I turned out OK. * If we don’t spank children, they’ll grow up rotten. * The bible says, “Spare the rod and spoil the child” Look at the facts: Spanking argument #1 - “Spanking is an effective way to manage behavior” Hitting a small child will usually stop misbehavior. However, other ways of discipline such as verbal correction, reasoning, and time-out work as well and do not have the potential for harm that hitting does. Hitting children may actually increase misbehavior. One large study showed that the more parents spanked children for antisocial behavior, the more the antisocial behavior increased (Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, l997). The more children are hit, the more likely they are to hit others including peers and siblings and, as adults, they are more likely to hit their spouses (Straus and Gelles, l990; Wolfe, l987). Hitting children teaches them that it is acceptable to hit others who are smaller and weaker. “I'm going to hit you because you hit your sister” is a hypocrisy not lost on children. Spanking argument #2 - “I got hit when I was a kid and I turned out OK” Being spanked is an emotional event. Adults often remember with crystal clarity times they were paddled or spanked as children. Many adults look back on corporal punishment in childhood with great anger and sadness. Sometimes people say, “I was spanked as a child, and I deserved it”. It is hard for us to believe that people who loved us would intentionally hurt us. We feel the need to excuse that hurt. Studies show that even a few instances of being hit as children are associated with more depressive symptoms as adults (Strauss, l994, Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit & Bates, l994). A landmark analysis of 88 corporal punishment studies over six decades by Dr. Elizabeth Gershoff (2002) showed that spanking was associated with l0 negative behaviors. While most of us who were spanked “turned out OK”, it is likely that not being spanked would have helped us turn out to be healthier. Spanking Argument #3 - “If we don't spank children, they'll grow up rotten” Children in eleven countries are growing up without being hit in homes, in daycare or in schools. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Finland and other countries that have banned corporal punishment of children have remarkably low rates of interpersonal violence compared to the United States. Professor Adrienne Haeuser who studied these educational laws in Europe in l981 and l991 said “Children are receiving more discipline since the law in Sweden passed. Parents think twice and tend to rely more on verbal conflict resolution to manage their children”. Discipline is important. Discipline means “to teach”. We need more discipline of children such as explaining and reasoning, establishing rules and consequences, praising good behavior in children and being good models for or children. Such methods develop a child's conscience and self-control. Children who experience teaching discipline are less likely to misbehave and more likely to become self-disciplined adults. Spanking Argument #4 - “The bible says 'Spare the rod and spoil the child' and I must obey God” Spanking is deeply rooted in the history and culture of the United States. The bible is often used to support, even perhaps to require, that parents use corporal punishment on children. Many clergy today are speaking out against that interpretation of scripture. The Reverend Dr. Thomas E. Sagendorf of Bexley United Methodist Church in Columbus, OH says the following “I can find no sanction in the teaching of Jesus or the witness of the New Testament to encourage the practice of corporal punishment at home, school or anywhere else. A number of popular voices take a different view, often quoting Old Testament scriptures to prove their point. Those who subscribe to this argument misunderstand and misuse scripture. A similar method of selective reading could just as well be used to justify slavery, suppression of women, polygamy, incest and infanticide”. Conclusion Look at the facts. Accumulated research supports the ineffectiveness and harm of corporal punishment. Children who are spanked most are more likely to be aggressive and hit others. Children hit for antisocial behaviors are more likely to increase those misbehaviors. Hitting children teaches acceptance of violence. While most of us who were spanked as children grow up to be healthy adults, spanking caused anxiety, contributed to feelings of helplessness and humiliation, and often provoked anger and a desire for revenge, feelings which have usually been repressed in adulthood but may lead to depression, adult violence, and hitting our own children. Effective discipline exists. It does not involve hitting and humiliating children..." http://webtools.familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,4-11718,00.html . 050216 ... oops that link was http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/factsAndFiction.php 050216 ... Aint Misbehavin: Discipline Tactics That Work! http://webtools.familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,4-11718,00.html 050216 ... .nom "...Consequences of Corporal Punishment Accumulated research supports the theory that corporal punishment is an ineffective discipline strategy with children of all ages and, furthermore, that it is often dangerous. Corporal punishment most often produces in its victims anger, resentment, and low self-esteem. It teaches violence and revenge as solutions to problems, and perpetuates itself, as children imitate what they see adults doing. Research substantiates the following consequences of corporal punishment: * Children whose parents use corporal punishment to control antisocial behavior show more antisocial behavior themselves over a long period of time, regardless of race and socioeconomic status, and regardless of whether the mother provides cognitive stimulation and emotional support (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Kazdin, 1987; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997). * A consistent pattern of physical abuse exists that generally starts as corporal punishment, and then gets out of control (Kadushin & Martin, 1981; Straus & Yodanis, 1994). * Adults who were hit as children are more likely to be depressed or violent themselves (Berkowitz, 1993; Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Straus, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus & Kantor, 1992). * The more a child is hit, the more likely it is that the child, when an adult, will hit his or her children, spouse, or friends (Julian & McKenry, 1993; Straus, 1991; Straus, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus & Kantor, 1992; Widom, 1989; Wolfe, 1987). * Corporal punishment increases the probability of children assaulting the parent in retaliation, especially as they grow older (Brezina, 1998). * Corporal punishment sends a message to the child that violence is a viable option for solving problems (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997). * Corporal punishment is degrading, contributes to feelings of helplessness and humiliation, robs a child of self-worth and self-respect, and can lead to withdrawal or aggression (Sternberg et al., 1993; Straus, 1994). * Corporal punishment erodes trust between a parent and a child, and increases the risk of child abuse; as a discipline measure, it simply does not decrease children's aggressive or delinquent behaviors (Straus, 1994). * Children who get spanked regularly are more likely over time to cheat or lie, be disobedient at school, bully others, and show less remorse for wrongdoing (Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997). * Corporal punishment adversely affects children's cognitive development. Children who are spanked perform poorly on school tasks compared to other children (Straus & Mathur, 1995; Straus & Paschall, 1998). Alternatives to Corporal Punishment * Set firm, consistent, age-appropriate, and acceptable limits. For example, although a 5-year-old child may be able to resist the urge to touch things, it is not reasonable to expect that a 2-year-old will be able to handle such limits. Therefore, parents may need to childproof their homes to protect breakable items, and to keep chidren away from dangerous objects. * Teach children conflict resolution and mediation skills, including listening actively, speaking clearly, showing trust and being trustworthy, accepting differences, setting group goals, negotiating, and mediating conflicts. * Reason and talk with children in age-appropriate ways. Verbal parent-child interactions enhance children's cognitive ability. * Model patience, kindness, empathy, and cooperation. Parents and teachers should be aware of the powerful influence their actions have on a child's or group's behavior. * Provide daily opportunities for children to practice rational problem solving, and to study alternatives and the effect of each alternative. * Encourage and praise children. A nonverbal response such as a smile or a nod, or a verbal response such as "good" or "right" not only provides incentives for accomplishment, but also builds primary grade children's confidence. * Allow children to participate in setting rules-and identifying consequences for breaking them. This empowers children to learn how to manage their own behavior. * Provide consistency, structure, continuity, and predictability in children's lives. * Encourage children's autonomy-allow them to think for themselves, and to monitor their own behavior, letting their conscience guide them. Strategies for Parents, Schools, and the Community * Expose children to a variety of sources-including the Internet, television, movies, radio programs, puppet shows-that model alternatives to corporal punishment. * Provide parents with information on child development and behavior management through workshops, mentoring, conferences, library books, newsletters, brochures, flyers, and bulletin board materials. * Make parents aware of parenting classes that stress behavior management strategies as alternatives to corporal punishment, or make parenting courses available at school. * Provide education classes for couples that recently have become parents. * Improve preservice and inservice programs for teachers, principals, and other school staff that teach techniques for building better interpersonal relations, positive guidance in the classroom, and new strategies for maintaining student interest. * Help establish ties between the school and community through mental health and family counseling programs to support families in stress. * Ensure increased collaboration among community programs serving young children and their families. * Develop a comprehensive and unified system of advocacy on behalf of children..." http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/sureshrani.php 050216 ... mon uow every hit was an echo of the first_hit 050407 what's it to you? who go blather from