Smacking of children by parents to be banned..

[HTM_1983]

I was a pain in the arse for my parents as a kid and they never touched me. I also say please, thank you and hold doors. So do my children. You got a smack, I got...a look! both seemed to work ok.

 

But there are some people who quite literally abuse their child and could use the present situation "I felt I was only disciplining them reasonably" as an excuse or mitigation.

 

I wonder if the proposals are being looked at because of higher degrees of reported child abuse?

 

I was generally given a look which worked but there was maybe once/twice i got a smack...both worked and stopped me doing what I had done. i was generally well behaved anyway and didnt cause that much grief - apart from the typical bickering with siblings.

 

Children now use the whole 'child abuse' line too easily, even if they have only had a slight smack/tap at back of legs. i totally agree that some parents use it as defense and an excuse for beating their children and i do not agree with that.

 

My point is that not all children who get smacked will smack back, be disrespectful as some posts have suggested

[skinz]

Children now use the whole 'child abuse' line too easily, even if they have only had a slight smack/tap at back of legs. i totally agree that some parents use it as defense and an excuse for beating their children and i do not agree with that.

 

I thought we were talking about infants? If you're smacking a child who is educated enough to shout "child abuse" as an accusation, then the parent has quit obviously got it wrong at infant stage.

 

My point is that not all children who get smacked will smack back, be disrespectful as some posts have suggested

 

Agreed, but there is an argument for children being physically reprimanded and that child also becoming abusive later in it's development, especially if the child was physically reprimanded throughout it's childhood without the addition of an explanation why its being hit. Many parents do hit and quite literally stop at that. That's lazy parenting IMO.

[Strix]

What anology?

click the blue arrows - that's what they're there for

[donkey]

Abuse and neglect are rightly illegal. Interfering in the way parents want to bring up their children and the state deciding to be arbiter of particular parenting methods certainly is meddling.

 

The state already is the arbiter of particular parenting methods. What some people deem as appropriate parenting, others consider harsh or neglectful. It is the state which has drawn the boundaries. The logic of your argument is that if you agree with laws they are appropriate and if you don't they are meddling.

 

 

 

This is another falsehood. Just because smacking children is legal, that does not mean child abuse is also legal. There are already various laws and legal instruments which make child abuse illegal.

 

I didn't say child abuse was legal. The point is that defining the line between appropriate smacking and abusive violence probably has about as many interpretations as the number of people you ask.

 

Have you ever intervened when seeing a parent unjustly or overzealously hitting their children? or have you never seen that in your life? I've seen it plenty. Nobody steps in because they know - within a broad interpretation of the law - unless the parent is causing injuries, they will not be prosecuted. Yet being repeatedly subjected to this treatment is abuse and permanently damages people. It goes on all the time, in our midst.

 

 

No it is not a logical conclusion to arrive at. Your assumption that the wish to retain the right to chastise and discipline (note not abuse) children means you're less concerned about child abuse in society couldn't be more wrong and is frankly a perverse suggestion.

 

 

Again, you misinterpret me. I wasn't refering to all people who think smacking should be legal. I was refering to the ones making a song and dance about their 'right' to hit their children, who are clearly motivated in this view more by the authoritian politics of the right wing crank, than any objective appraisal of the pros and cons.

 

 

 

A

 

It's a bit like saying some car drivers are bad and kill people, so let's ban cars. And if you're a sensible car driver that think cars shouldn't be banned, then you must be more concerned about being able to use your own car than the people that get killed by cars.

 

Or some people can't handle their drink, so let's ban alcohol. And if you quite fancy the odd glass of wine and think it's a silly idea banning alcohol, well you must be more concerned for your own pleasure than those that get beat up by drunks.

 

 

Not at all. It would only be like that if you were banning the right to discipline altogether. Laws on driving and alcohol are adjusted all the time. Society would collapse if driving were suddenly banned. The same can't be said of smacking children.

 

The alcohol analogy doesn't work either. People who get drunk and violent do not believe that a certain amount of violence is legal and socially acceptable when they are drunk. It is clear cut. Drinking is legal, assault is not.

 

 

Of course, child abuse does go on which is illegal, but it will do no good what so ever to criminalise parents who legally and legitimately chastise (note not abuse) their children by smacking.

 

The police don't generally target speeding laws against people who go 75MPH on the motorway. In the same way, I would expect a smacking ban would be aimed at the abusive parents who get away with taking out their anger on their kids by whacking and verbally abusing them on a daily basis. Even though they may be frequently heard or seen doing this, they are seldom reported because people know there is no case for a prosecution without medical evidence of an injury prooved to be a result of the violence.

 

Creating a solid legal base for reporting such behaviour would clarify that it is neither socially acceptable, nor permissable.

 

 

As for policing the 'fine line', that is the job of society at large, of people that come into contact with children such as family, teachers, doctors, social workers etc.

 

How can 'society at large' possibly police a line which is so totally down to subjective interpretation?

 

Furthermore, 'with rights come responsibilities'. You see it as a parental right to hit children, but are suggesting responsibility for assessing and acting against harmful consequences - which may result as a side effect of your 'parental right' - should be passed to a vague grouping, who are supposed to voluntarily police this elusive line, without any command structure, any accountability or even a clearly defined objective. I can't see that being very effective.

[skinz]

.<Snip>

 

 

That was a long one..hope you don't mind the snip.

 

Comprehensively argued

Spot on post.

[scoop]

My view is that hitting children is always wrong.

 

As a disciplinary measure it simply isn't effective.

 

Most parents who hit/smack their child do it in anger, not in a controlled measured way - this teaches children that it is right to physically hurt someone when you're angry with them.

 

Fifty years ago, it was considered acceptable for men to castise their wives with a slap - similar arguements were put forward then as to why this was acceptable as have been put forward in this thread.

 

If you disagree, is it ok for me to come round and give you a slap? Why not?

[skinz]

My view is that hitting children is always wrong.

 

As a disciplinary measure it simply isn't effective.

 

Most parents who hit/smack their child do it in anger, not in a controlled measured way - this teaches children that it is right to physically hurt someone when you're angry with them.

 

Fifty years ago, it was considered acceptable for men to castise their wives with a slap - similar arguements were put forward then as to why this was acceptable as have been put forward in this thread.

 

If you disagree, is it ok for me to come round and give you a slap? Why not?

 

Or...can I come round and give your child a smack for you? Saving you the trouble like.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Traumatising a child by removing her to her cot only teaches her fear of separation and is likely to cause more problems at bedtime. A short sharp smack is far easier for her to comprehend IN THIS SITUATION

To be fair to the 'Naughty Step' method, there is no seperation. One is meant to place the child on a seat or step and not to feed the negative behaviour with attention. Putting your child back in bed isn't what Supernanny would do, from my limited experience of watching the show.

 

I've not got kids myself, I've got a nephew who has just turned 4, and he can be naughty at times. When he is bad he spits, he kicks, he swears, he punches my grandparents (both above 85 now) and I find it hard not to give him a smack. Yet, his parents smack him, and they've smacked him for all his life. His behaviour doesn't improve because he is in control. He is naughty, and if he is smacked he sulks and is still in control. I've seen him smacked one minute and given sweets the next to stop him crying. The violence alone isn't discipline - it is anything but discipline.

[manofstrad]

click the blue arrows - that's what they're there for

 

Yep done that, still no anology.

 

What I did come across though was this:

 

One listener, a woman in her mid-thirties, phoned into the Radio 2 show to express her strong support for the ban.

 

Her story was that when she and her sibling were children, their father was overly aggressive when disciplining them. On numerous occasions the children had phoned the police in total fear of the parent, only to be told that the police could not interfere in the matter.

 

A woman sharing her terrible experiences as a child and expressing her strong support for the ban so that other children may be spared such trauma.

 

Do you remember saying this?:

 

They wouldn't have intervened in a wife-beating case at the time either, so that's a rubbish argument

 

What has wife beating got to do with it? Is this the 'rubbish anology' you were referring to?

[Halibut]

Yep done that, still no anology.

 

What I did come across though was this:

 

 

 

A woman sharing her terrible experiences as a child and expressing her strong support for the ban so that other children may be spared such trauma.

 

Do you remember saying this?:

 

 

 

What has wife beating got to do with it? Is this the 'rubbish anology' you were referring to?

 

I think 'analogy' is the word you were looking for.

 

Hope this helps.