Do parents have a right to smack kids?

[hmmm]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3866295.stm

While my answer would be yes, don't be stupid there is of course a rather large argument over the whole area at the moment.

Some people say it is tantamount to child abuse, others say it is cruel (most of these people don't have children, make of that what you will), others say children should have no rights and some have even managed to blame it on the poor - blame what exactly I'm not quite sure.

And at the same time these people are complaining about child yobs who have no respect for their elders and it wasn't like that back in the day yadda yadda.

But anyway, what is your take on it?

[Laurel]

It is unnecessary. It is perfectly possible to raise a child perfectly well without smacking and without losing respect.

I was raised with a combination of losing privliges, rewards for good behavior and yelling. Lots of yelling. And that, as much as physical violence, can command obedience. (Not necessarily respect, but is respect what smacking really leads to?)

With the difference that even when my parents were really angry, I knew that they would never hurt me. I even remember thinking that - dad is really angry and I'm scared, but he would never hit me.

But that isn't the reason I think we should not allow corporal punishment. I am sure that many children raised with it have had perfectly happy balanced lives. It is because if we allow some, where do you draw the line? Who is going to be there to say when the smacks get too much or too often?

You're a kid. You admire and adore your parents. You are not going to tell on them just because you think their punishments may be a little too harsh or excessive.

[Guest]

[s]Unregisted User hmmm wrote on 22:06, 6th Jul 2004:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3866295.stm

While my answer would be yes, don't be stupid there is of course a rather large argument over the whole area at the moment.

Some people say it is tantamount to child abuse, others say it is cruel (most of these people don't have children, make of that what you will), others say children should have no rights and some have even managed to blame it on the poor - blame what exactly I'm not quite sure.

And at the same time these people are complaining about child yobs who have no respect for their elders and it wasn't like that back in the day yadda yadda.

But anyway, what is your take on it?

Yeh i would say they do,its a short sharp swift punishment thats gets its message across. It is just as bad to give as to receive.

The old law outlawed beating, so why change it? A smack neither traumatizes or causes lasting physical harm. People should have the freedom to bring up their children in the manner they see fit using their own moral code. One aspirin can prolong your life, 30 of the suckers can kill you. Should we ban all aspirins then?

[appalled]

Smacking is not hitting and smacking does not hurt. If a complete ban on smacking comes about then the courts will be full of perfectly good parents brought up on silly charges while the real violent people get away with it.

A "smack" doesn't hurt, but at this rate a parent will have their hands tied as much as primary teachers do - how long before parents can't help their children go to the toilet or have a bath because it infringes children's rights?!

And again a smack is not violent, it is not hitting, it does NOT hurt. But the fact that you get one from your Mum is enough for you to know and in cases of more hyper children and no offense ( ) but especially boys smacks are often necessary. Some children only need one in their whole life but that is enough for them. And most kids at the age of getting a smack are wearing a nappy, so the thought that it is hitting or might hurt is ridiculous.

There is a huge difference between abuse and a smack and it's already bad enough that many good parents have been punished for things they never did, I dread to think how much the law will go on to dictate how much contact a parents can have with their child.

[echo]

I worry about the fact that common sense has gone out the window here. I was smacked as a kid (or hit if you prefer).

Firstly, we (the public ) know what is reasonable. The idea we dont is just a total myth, leave this to juries. Trial by our peers is a pretty good system. Secondly, people who oppose smacking say it leads to beating. It is true that it precedes it. The beaters of children are rare identified. Do you think a smacking ban would saved Victoria Climbe? What would have saved people like Victoria would be a society that was not afraid to say just because you are poor does not mean you can be reckless with your and others life. At the same time a decent society would help people out of poverty.

Opponents say any smakcing is child abuse. Really? So what would do if a parent if a parent says they will not obey your law. Take the kids away or lock the parent up. You must think this through, kids at my school who were "looked" after by the state were a total mess. Almost all ended up in the penal system. Although these kids might have been worse off left with their parent(s), does anyone believe the state does a good job of looking after children??? Are you prepared to send children to care because their parents smack their hands or bottom for being naughty? In that case, I suggest you are more likely to damage the kid. While parents like mine make mistakes and do bad things, at the end of the day, they cared more for me than anyone else in the world. They certainly cared for me better than any childrens home would have. This is generally true, parents care more and can be trusted more than anyone else (no matter how clever or compassionate they appear) to look afer children.

The defence is that we will never prosecute for minor offences (ie those that someone one appointed consider reasonable!). I prefer the option of jury to a right wing reactionary in a wig. Do you trust the police when on a fishing exercise not to try and rake up muck on you if you fit the bill for something else, what about divorcing couples etc. If you dont believe in enforcing the law dont make it.

If you are so fired up about child abuse. Then I would like a law that says parents should be fined for their children watching unsuitable films, not being fed properly before going to school, not being read to at night, not being emotionally supported and not being encouraged at school.

All of the above, unlike smacking, have been shown to affect the life chances of children.

[hr]Manchester, so much to answer for

[Saki]

I quite like the idea of making smacking illegal. It would make any physical punishment of a child illegal so that parents were no longer able to hide behind "it was just a smack" but, on the other hand, it's blatantly not going to be a law that's enforced all of the time for everyone. It'll end up being enforced to a similar degree to the statutory rape law - a tiny percentage of those who have sex with under-16s are prosecuted for statutory rape, but the protection of the law is there for under-16s if they feel as though they have been abused. Similarly, with smacking, the vast majority of the time it will be mild smacking and won't go anywhere near a prosecution, but the protection of the law will be there for children who feel abused. Yes, currently, beating is outlawed but allowing smacking allows abusive parents a real loophole.

[randypanthegoatboy]

I was smacked as a kid and i still acted like a little bastard well into my teens. I remember being more scared of the psychological aspects of punishment. Such as grounding, bieng shouted at and not bieng allowed certain privilages.
Smacking is more of a temporary punishment that is easy to forget where as the psychological punishment stays with the child for quite some time.

There of course has to be moderation for both sides as to prevent acts of child abuse, but i dont see a smack as child abuse as long as the child knows what it is getting a smack for.

I think there is to much emphasise is put on the way a parent treats a child when the childs innate personality predicts most of its behaviour.

For example a child that could have drug users as parents ends up going to University out of the desperation to leave thier environment. Or a rich kid from well to do parents could end up taking drugs and rebelling against thier perfect environment.

Overall i feel that it depends on the perceptions of the child as to whether they see the smack as punishment or an quick and easy way out of paying the consequences for thier behaviour

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Please see the futile argument thread.

[Sleigh]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 13:38, 7th Jul 2004:
Please see the futile argument thread.

Surely that covers every single topic on the Sinner ever. Can you remember one participant changing their position on an issue in any thread?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

If we include people getting bored of the stupidity, lengthy or tedium of arguments as that - then yes. Otherwise, no.

[Guest]

the title of my post says it all.

[exnihilo]

Yeah. it says you don't know what you're talking about.

[hr]The world is full of stupid people. I say we get rid of all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself.

[Manic23]

Smacking does no harm at all, I was smacked as a wean for being a wee shit and I do not

a)wake up screaming in the middle of the night
b)Piss the bed
c)Despise my parents

Other lifeforms use a smack as chastisement e.g. primates, why shouldn't we? Its when the smack turns into a blow that things become unacceptable, but most good parents can tell the difference between the two

No doubt certain people will find issue with what I say regardless of the viewpoint I take, but its my two pennies, so there!

[Al]

I see lots of people are coming out with a lot of bad reasons as to why smacking should be allowed. I wonder why no one has managed to conjure a good reason to defend smacking. Firstly, children should be entitled to the same protection that the law affords to adults. Secondly, no one would defend the idea of physically chastising someone who was "child-like" (either through old age, accident or other infirmity). Why then do you consider it to be acceptable to hit a child? At the end of the day, there is an onus on society to protect those who are most vulnerable. For those reasons alone - if for no other - smacking should be completely outlawed.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[S.P.I.G]

Kids today are little fucking shits - a good beating now and again would sort the little shits out. But to successfully sort the problem we need to first of all neuter neds, then kill them. Human rights - my arse! Liberal, hippy bullshit!

[jennyo]

I was smacked (or spanked, as we like to call it in America) very rarely as a kid, usually to bring me up short during a tantrum. Which is one reason why I think smacking, i.e. a quick, mostly painless yet surprising slap, is a perfectly good way of disciplining kids. You can't sit a screaming two-year-old down in the middle of a crowded store and explain to him the financial and nutritional reasons why his tantrum is an unreasonable response to not being allowed a candy bar.

I think that it's acceptable for parents to discipline their children -- and not their OAP parents -- because as minors children are the parents' legal responsibility. But I keep second-guessing my stance on it because not so long ago it was acceptable for a man to give his wife a little 'gentle correction' if he thought she needed it -- so maybe children's legal status is in the process of changing as women's has done. But is a 6-year-old capable of making rational decisions about his welfare?

[hr]If you can't be a good example, you'll have to be a horrible warning

[randypanthegoatboy]

[s]S.P.I.G wrote on 02:11, 8th Jul 2004:
Kids today are little fucking shits - a good beating now and again would sort the little shits out. But to successfully sort the problem we need to first of all neuter neds, then kill them. Human rights - my arse! Liberal, hippy bullshit!



Right on Man, Can i help

[Guest]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 20:27, 7th Jul 2004:
the title of my post says it all.


Don't be daft, verbal abuse is much more damaging than a wee smack and if you take away parent's confidence in doing that then being verbally nasty will be the result for some children.

Also if the government insists on taking away a parents right to discipline their child then how on earth can they at the same time hold parents responsible for making sure their children don't play truant?

The government should keep its nose out of other people's business. Tying parents hands will only lead to more troublesome children and more silly disputes between warring families and seperated parents etc.

Sometimes even the threat of a clip round the ear is good enough but seeing as a child can now cry child abuse if a parent so much as lifts a finger how long before parents will be told they cannot touch their kids in anyway - ah ah parents, some men are sexually abusive to their children so from now on no parents can see their babies/children naked. Makes about as much sense as trying to ban smacking just because some parents are violent.

[novium]

I think it is interesting to see what other people have to say on the subject. And you guys don't seem to be doing the whole "Anyone who disagrees with me is a big stupid head" thing. I've seen arguments with support.

As to my opinion, I do not think smacking or spanking is something that can really be regulated. It's just too hard to define. So I'd say ban child abuse, of course, but judge everything else on a case by case basis. Personally, I thinking a spanking or being smacked is fine, as long as it doesn't cross the line. And it shouldn't be done in anger- it should be more along the lines of "I've told you many times not to run out in the street. It is very dangerous. As punishment, you are going to be spanked" or whatever. THat sounds sort of weird when I look at it, all written down, but I think the gist of it comes through.

[c. p.]

yes they do.

the slapping should be given to the liberal penarses trying to get it banned. fools.