Spare the rod . . .

'tis

But Cycloptichorn is complying with this rule: He intends to corporally punish his yet-to-be-conceived children, and he approves of his elders corporally punishing him. So what's your problem with Cycloptichorn's parenting model? He's consistent with the Golden Rule, and by your account that's the only rule it takes.

Where cyclo and I disagree is the sentiment that it is sometimes "necessary" to use corporal punishment or that developmentally normal children sometimes require being struck in order to instill a sense of discipline.

Our difference in outlook is best summarized in one of the first posts in this thread.



He believes fully in the value of corporal punishment. I don't and wouldn't want anyone in charge of my care thinking the way he does.

I could be wrong but I don't think cyclo really thinks that our judiciary should impart sentences of whippings or beatings to convicted felons -- maybe he does, in which case I'm also glad he isn't in charge of our legal system.

I don't really disagree, but that's a few more rules than the golden one.

Personally, I would distinguish between what parents should do and what the government should force parents to do. I wouldn't spank my child with a belt for lying. I also wouldn't impose a 10-year prison sentence on a father for doing so -- which is quite possibly more traumatic for the child than the physical spanking.

Oops -- I just checked the article again and saw it's 10 days, not 10 years. That's different. Ten days is defensible.

Hell, not only possibly, but definitely!

That's the thing about taking a beating for your wrongs - you take your licks, and you're done with it. It is potentially far less cruel than some of the more prolonged punishments that I've seen some suggest here.

Cycloptichorn

I don't know which suggestions you talk about, but I agree that some of the psycho games parents play on their children are more hurtful than physical punishment.

Family Court Judge Patrick Border sentenced Robertson to 10 days in jail and two years of probation, but delayed imposition of the sentence while the case was appealed.

How do you feel about 10 days?

Like I said earlier,



If the father was charged under a state statute that prohibits hitting with a child with a belt or striking a child with force that results in wounds then the sentence was just (imo). If not, then it shouldn't have been in the courts in the first place and overturning the trial judge was proper.

I think you may be concerned about laws being on the books that prohibit parents from determining how to raise their children. I'd have to see the actual statute before I could comment on whether they've crossed the line between protecting children from an abusive parent and interfering with the parent's rights to discipline their child.

We cross posted...

Using Rod, Belts, Wires or any typs of "whips \ objects" is what I am against. They can injure the child or any human for that matter. So they should be taken seriously.

A hard nudge and \ or spanking by hands (like hard pat on back or on chicks) is necessary if the child is too much misbehaving. That does cause a feeling of "shame" in the child and he/she understands the seriousness of the situation.

There should also be an age for such punishments ... I think 5 to 12 years is valid ...

I feel that (such non-brusing\non-injuring spanking) should not come under scrutiny of legalities as sometimes that is the ONLY way left to disipline your child.

I would have hated my parents if they had ever whipped me ... but having said that they did spank me... a lot.

Then ofcourse my mother would kiss or hug me afterwards when I used to feel like crying...

And I would say sorry to her and my dad... and she would also do the same.

Luv those childhood days.

On second thought, no third thought, I think the appeals court was right in sacking the case.


That's not what the statute provides, though. The article on page 1 contains a link to the original text of the opinion, which in turn cites the relevant part of the relevant statute. The statute draws the line between discipline and child abuse as follows: It's not child abuse if the following two conditions are met:


The father's discipline, as described in the case, complies with both prongs in the statute. The father's use of force certainly did not cause any of the harm outlined in prong (b). And although you may disagree with what the father did, it was "reasonably related to the purpose of [...] punishment of the minor's misconduct." He could have done better, but I don't mind as far as legal sanctions are concerned. It's not against the law to be a less-than-perfect father -- and that's a good thing, too.

1st - The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that spanking a child is legal as long as the child does not require medical attention as a direct result of the parental punishment.
2nd - Preventing a parent from spanking a child is in direct conflict with many parents practice of there religions as stated in the bible, "spare the rod spoil the child".
3rd - If the government were in charge of your child and your child refused to cooperate with them they would physically force that child to comply, Isn’t that exactly the same thing the parent is trying to do? Do you know what happen in juvenile prisons? Things worse then spankings I can assure you.
4th - There is no one better suited to find the appropriate punishment of a child then their parents. Simply because they are genetically similar, the parent has the best chance to understand the nature of the child’s behavior since they themselves are both physically and mentally similar the parents have an insight into the mind of the child no one can duplicate. Children both look and act like there parents did as a child, you can call it nature or nurture but either way no one could possible understand the child’s mind better then the parent. With that knowledge a parent has the best resource to determine a proper punishment for any given wrong doing. The parent is the expert when it comes to their own child. Sober parents often have somber children and they just can't understand the need to spank a child because they never needed too. It's not in their realm of experience and that is certainly a great thing if that is true for you. But as some of us were wild kids and nothing short of a spanking stopped us from snapping out of our wild antics. Of course there will always be bad people who go beyond the point of a just punishment suited for a crime and they should be treated the same way a child is. Forced to comply with the rules and if they resist they will be spanked by the arresting police officer.

Spare the rod and roil the parent.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, senseicombs, but I sure would like to know where in the Bible I would find that particular saying. It's pretty old but I didn't think it was that old.

Hi, Miss Toad. I think you meant 'broil the parent", no?

I'll bet it was Nod.



(you know, the guy from honest Nod's used rods and stuff)

<nods in Rockhead's direction>

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/328950.html

I'd best start with a light rattan on you youngster.

I was spanked with the hand all the way up till around 13, though it did not make much of an impression on me after about five years. I would cry cause I thought I was supposed to. Then one day I stopped, no emotion, no reactions, as if nothing was happening. It never happened again.

I believe in spanking, though I like to think that I have better tools in my tool box. Three kids, only one has been punished, though not spanked exactly. My boy at 9 years old had gotten into a bad crowd, plus thought that he was 15 . One day he did something really bad, after weeks of getting in constant trouble. None of my other tools had worked, I had tried them all. He got five lashes with the belt. Never had a problem with him after that.

I am a full supporter of corporal punishment.

Certainly no surprise there.