Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Consequences of corporal punishment
Corporal Punishment: Merits And Demerits
Corporal Punishment: Merits And Demerits
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Consequences of corporal punishment
There is an ongoing debate about whether it is correct for parents to smack their children. Currently in Britain parents are permitted ‘reasonable chastisement’ as long as it does not leave a mark on the child. Many groups are campaigning to ban any form of hitting a child and in several countries this is already illegal. Conversely there are groups campaigning to prevent a ban. Both sides have many arguments with some more valid than others. Smacking children may enable them to be more successful later in life. In a study quoted in The Telegraph (2017) it was found that teenagers’ who had been smacked, up until the age of six, were likely to be more optimistic and more likely to want to pursue higher education than those who had not been smacked …show more content…
They insist that smacking is just another name for assault and that children should have a right to legal protection from assault as much as adults. This is particularly true when, in many cases, what starts off as a smack escalates into physical abuse. The fine line between the two is easily crossed by an angry adult. The United Nations has stated that, “Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of violence” (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006). In the same way an adult would not generally hit another adult, even if upset by them, a child should receive equal treatment. Which adult, if asked to honestly evaluate, could truthfully say they had smacked purely for discipline and not to express their own anger and release frustration? There is an argument for the use of smacking as a punishment in extreme and dangerous circumstances to prevent a child repeating the behaviour. Many parents would consider smacking a child if they ran into a road or touched something hot. The parent feels that the shock and pain the child will experience will imprint the memory onto their brain and remind them to act differently in future situations. In an otherwise loving environment this could possibly not harm a child and may even achieve the intended …show more content…
Children who see violence being used against them will go on to use violence with others. When a child is hit by someone they love, who they expect to care for them and protect them, it can confuse them immensely. Constant exposure to this confusion can cause them to start expecting hostility from everyone around them and leads to a rise in anti-social behaviour. This is known as ‘hostile attribution bias’. When interviewing parents it was found that aggression in children was the most likely behaviour to lead to smacking. There was a clear link found between an increase in smacking and an increase in aggression. Some have claimed that this is because children with worse behaviour tend to be smacked more often but this was not found to be the
The doings generally take place by the parent. Hitting a child or anyone with an object is always considered physical abuse. Adrian Peterson does not reflect himself as a child abuser but, hitting a toddler with an object tells others otherwise. “The football star said he disciplined his son the way he was disciplined by his own parents, and credited his success to the style of upbringing.” (Alter, 2014). As an individual, people tend to think this method worked and helped for them, but that does not mean it will work also for their child. A 4-year-old child know right from wrong. When it comes to chastisement, they should not be beaten to where marks, scratches and bruises are visible. SHARPLES TIFFANY
According to McCoskrie (2013), an appropriate smacking does not teach aggressive behaviour. The researchers argue that children who punished are unlikely to antisocial behaviour as long as the child believes their punishment is coming from “a good place” (McCoskrie 2013). Despite this, these claim are incorrect because, young children cannot distinguish whether the punishment is reasonable or not. There are numerous ways that parents can teach and control their children more affectively. As the college estimates that, in fact corporal punishment besides being hurtful and psychologically harmful does not necessarily stop the kids from bad behaviour. It is even more likely child responds back more aggressively (Why smacking should be regarded as a crime
Our society allows police, council officials, and other busy bodies dictate how parents should raise their children. A scolding, smack in the face, and a spanking on the butt are all forms of punishment. A punishment is a tool used by parents to discipline their children for misbehavior. Abuse is a commonly thrown around term that offers an inflated meaning to punishment. bell hooks states in her article that a parent cannot “love” if they are “abusive.” Care for individuals’ actions is love; if a child is not reprimanded for bad behavior then the parent is further being abusive. Each and every parent loves their child and to have people dictate on how to raise their child is acceptable to a point. bell hooks deals an absolute, which is any form of physical punishment is abuse.
Spanking could also teach children that it's all right to hit, and that it's all right to be hit and that could have a negative long term effect on the children. I
Nadine Block argues that spanking children is not a form of love or compassion, but rather an act of violence and disciplinary spanking should be an outlawed practice. Disciplinary spanking is a different thing than a depressed or angry parent spanking a child to relieve their mood. Spanking a child in order to remove the idea of performing an action known to the child to be unacceptable is something that every parent should do, and is not an act of abuse or violence. When used correctly, spanking children is a highly effective and loving response to unruly behavior, because the child learns how to behave and become an upstanding citizen (Dodson). If a child is not disciplined for improper actions, the child is more likely to develop behavior problems and illnesses such as ADHD, while a child who is properly disciplined is more likely to grow into a better-behaved individual (Shute).
The use of spanking is one of the most controversial parenting practices and also one of the oldest, spanning throughout many generations. Spanking is a discipline method in which a supervising adult deliberately inflicts pain upon a child in response to a child’s unacceptable behaviour. Although spanking exists in nearly every country and family, its expression is heterogeneous. First of all the act of administering a spanking varies between families and cultures. As Gershoff (2002) pointed out, some parents plan when a spanking would be the most effective discipline whereas some parents spank impulsively (Holden, 2002). Parents also differ in their moods when delivering this controversial punishment, some parents are livid and others try and be loving and reason with the child. Another source of variation is the fact that spanking is often paired with other parenting behaviours such as, scolding, yelling, or perhaps raging and subsequently reasoning. A third source of variation concerns parental characteristics. Darling and Steinberg (1993) distinguished between the content of parental acts and the style in which it was administered (Holden, 2002). With all this variation researchers cannot definitively isolate the singular effects of spanking.
First of all, spanking does not lead to violence. Our surrounding world and media do. "The average sixteen-year- old has watched 18,000 murders during his formative years, including a daily bombardment of stabbings, shootings, hangings, decapitations, and general dismemberment" (Meier 34). It seems unjust to blame parents who are trying to raise their children properly for today's violence. If a child touches a hot stove he does not become a more violent person because of it, he just learns not to do it again because he learned a valuable lesson from the pain (Meier 34).
The issue of spanking is whether it is justifiable or an act of child abuse. Some child specialists, such as Christine Walsh and Michael Boyle, argue that if a parent must administer a spanking, it should not be through anger and only as a last option when other forms of discipline have been deemed unsuccessful. They say that for a spanking to be instructive it must be...
‘A good smack never did a child any harm, that’s how they learn what is right and what is wrong’ has been proven wrong by Behavioral Psychologists, by conducting conditioning experiments. B.F Skinner who studied and performed an experiment on operant conditioning proved that to punish a child, does not always provide the direction that reward does, and in fact it teaches the child that a particular behaviour is unacceptable, and doesn’t show which other behaviours are acceptable.
Swat! The entire store tries not to stare at the overwhelmed mother spanking her three-year-old whaling son. As if the screaming tantrum wasn't enough of a side show at the supermarket. This method, or technique perhaps, has been around for decades, even centuries. Generations have sat on grandpa’s lap and listened to the stories of picking their own switch or getting the belt after pulling off a devilish trick. So why then has it become a major controversy in the past few decades? The newest claim is that spanking and other forms of physical punishment can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children. Brendan L. Smith uses many case studies and psychologists findings in his article “The Case Against Spanking” to suggest that parents refrain from physically punishing their children due to lasting harmful effects.
The physical abuse of children covers a wide range of actions from what some might term ‘justifiable chastisement’ such as slapping or spanning to the sort of actions which most would agree constitute deliberate, sadistic cruelty against children.
"Spanking doesn 't work, and it just makes kids mistrustful and aggressive. What we 're teaching them is fear rather than responsibility and problem-solving." said Kimberly Sirl, a clinical psychologist at St. Louis Children 's Hospital (Blythe). This is important because parents need to understand spanking doesn 't work and it results that the child becomes aggressive and mistrustful. Parents are trying to teach their child a lesson but instead making them fearful. Children will be aggressive and think violence is the answer to everything. The point of spanking is to teach the child what they did was wrong but kids don 't get that message when they get physically abused. It teaches them the wrong lesson and they think that it 's okay to spank kids so when they get older they will probably do the same thing. Corporal punishment of a child by a caregiver is legal in every state, but it crosses the line to abuse when a child is injured. Doctors and teachers are required to report to authorities any marks, bruises, cuts or other injuries inflicted on a child (Blythe). Anyone who is a caregiver of a child is legally allowed to hit the child. It only becomes an issue or problem when the child is left with bruises, marks, and injuries. If a doctor or teacher were to see any type of bruise on the child they are required to report it. There is spanking a
Any parent who has threatened to spank a child to modify behavior has observed the immediate change in demeanor. Psychologists tell us, however, that corporal punishment has no more of a desired effect on a child in the long term than alternative disciplinary methods such as a timeout or revoking privileges. Sweden proved that corporal punishment is no more effective than alternative methods and law enforcement officers are no more burdened by the laws put in place to protect the physical integrity of children. If in fact opponents and proponents are both right, their methods both work equally as well as the other, which one is the right one? Can they both be right? Unless we are going to make it legal to go around hitting each other for being snarky, rude, disrespectful, not paying attention, or just out of irritation due to undesirable behavior, the right thing to do is protect the most innocent of our kind. The right thing to do is give our children the same rights we give our family, friends, neighbors, and strangers. The moral thing to do is lead by example. The answer is
Parents Hitting Their Children For this coursework, I will be looking at whether parents should be allowed to hit their children or children that are being looked after by them. Like most questions there are usually two sides to the argument. The 1st reason why parents should be allowed to hit their kids is to enforce a form of discipline. The other reason why hitting children is bad is because by hitting a child, they may be emotionally scared for life.
Because many parents do not know or are confused in showing their children how to gain discipline they do not know whether to hit them or not to hit them. Many people think that by hitting their children that they are showing them violence but other people say that if you do the children would understand that they did something wrong and would not repeat it and gain discipline. What can parents do?