Men who agree with corporal punishment

kellaman123

santana75 wrote: »

Im not so sure about that. When I was growing up any kid who was trouble out on the streets came from a home that was pretty dysfunctional. And this is something I saw with my own eyes, it wasnt just a case of jumping to conclusions about the kind of home they came from. I knew some genuine scary/crazy people and they did not grow up in a nurturing loving environment, they grew up in the Manson family home.

That's as may be and I'm not denying there's a lot of problem kids from the dysfunctional families but sometimes the double income families with their own prospering business and posh houses can be responsible for the most troublesome demon spawn. A lot of these kids are nightmares because they have everything and are spoilt rotten as opposed to the other kids who don't have very much. In any case whatever the socioeconomic class the problem of delinquent teens stems from a lack of real and proper discipline in the home.

Boskowski

I don't believe in it.
I was on the receiving end of it when a child/teenager and I don't think I would have turned out worse without it. My dad just didn't know it any other way I suppose. But it didn't do much for our relationship especially as it was applied across the board even as punishment for relatively minor offences and I would absolutely oppose it when used like that.
Having said that I could see situations where there just may be no other answer. People can be absolutely horrible and children or teenagers are not exempt from that.
I wouldn't advocate it or even practice it but I wouldn't say never ever under no circumstances.

P.S. What was the women's view by the way. In favour or against?

Call Me Jimmy

kellaman123 wrote: »

That's as may be and I'm not denying there's a lot of problem kids from the dysfunctional families but sometimes the double income families with their own prospering business and posh houses can be responsible for the most troublesome demon spawn. A lot of these kids are nightmares because they have everything and are spoilt rotten as opposed to the other kids who don't have very much. In any case whatever the socioeconomic class the problem of delinquent teens stems from a lack of real and proper discipline in the home.

I would argue, if we're talking in broad terms, no matter how obnoxious someone is from prosperous parents who wouldn't dream of hitting their child, they are a lot less dangerous than the people from the other end of the spectrum who were taught through violence. These people I would say are a lot more volatile.

All just for discussion I mean, I'm not for one second saying this is factually based, but I'd guess if there were stats they'd back this.

ofcork

I firmly believe since it was stopped in schools lack of respect for authority has increased,i remember getting the baton in school and you wouldn't do it again,lines or detention wouldn't have the same effect.

tomh1736

ofcork wrote: »

I firmly believe since it was stopped in schools lack of respect for authority has increased,i remember getting the baton in school and you wouldn't do it again,lines or detention wouldn't have the same effect.

I'm not so sure it was a good thing in the schooling system and I think if it was reintroduced today there would be anarchy among the parents. I think a lot of the teachers would end up getting a hiding from the parents. In the home though that's another matter. If a parent wishes to use corporal punishment and they feel it makes a difference in how their kids behave then they should be allowed to use it without the threat of prosecution

Waking-Dreams

There’s a slight problem with people stating “things are worse than ever”. And that’s because every generation has, in some form or another, said that young people are out of control, have no respect for their elders, etc.

This is not a new phenomenon.

Speaking personally, the behaviour that many of us 30-somethings engaged in back in the day would have been seen by the older generation as anti-social and disrespectful. I remember being told off by a woman on my street for spitting on the pavement. In her eyes, that behaviour was despicable and me rolling my eyes at her comments would have been perceived by her as “no respect for authority”.

kellaman123 wrote: »

I think the real experience of people on the streets like the gardai is far more relevant than any statistics

While the real life experiences of people ‘on the streets’ should not be disregarded, at the same time, one cannot just draw a concrete conclusion from only a small sample of behaviour in the population.

For example, AGS, as one example, are typically only going to come into contact with people who engage in anti-social behaviour, etc. (given the nature of their jobs) and so will always see the very worst of people. But that means that the majority of other kids who don’t break any laws or engage in anti-social behaviour are not being taken into account.

I take the point that not all anti-social behaviour is officially reported but, at the same time, if good behaviour is not also taken into account then all you are getting from these first-hand testimonies is a skewed example of how bad things are out there. The argument swings both ways, essentially.

Waking-Dreams

kellaman123 wrote: »

That's as may be and I'm not denying there's a lot of problem kids from the dysfunctional families but sometimes the double income families with their own prospering business and posh houses can be responsible for the most troublesome demon spawn. A lot of these kids are nightmares because they have everything and are spoilt rotten as opposed to the other kids who don't have very much. In any case whatever the socioeconomic class the problem of delinquent teens stems from a lack of real and proper discipline in the home.

You could also add that those from higher socio-economic households may also be able to afford much better solicitors to represent their offspring if they go before a judge.

So, yes, it is important not to make anti-social behaviour become a label that gets attached to just working class backgrounds (but it definitely is there, no doubt about it).

However, I do question the argument about a lack of parental discipline being the sole cause of delinquent teens. Personality is not just a matter of nurture (upbringing) but encompasses nature as well (the genes you are born with). There are genetic predispositions which can be hard to counteract even with the best of parenting.

And then there is the whole social psychology side of anti-social behaviour: people will engage in risky behaviour if it leads to status and acceptance as part of the group. In the case of those on the margins of society, perhaps they have fewer ways to gain status amongst their peers. Look at the whole ASBO ‘score board’ phenomenon that happened in the UK. The kids were trying to compete with one another over who could get the most.

reprazant

There seems to be discussions going on here. Most people seem to be talking about giving their kids a smack when they are bad, which is not necessarily a bad thing when done right and when necessary. The OP seems to be talking about getting his belt out and beating his or others kids. I cannot agree with that. Regardless of my opinion, it is not as if there is only two options available to parents, do nothing or beat their kids.

I never had an upbringing like that. I did get smacked but both my parents grew up in houses where they were beaten for everything and anything with differing results. All it did was to make my parents swear that they would never bring up their kids like that and they didn't and we didn't turn out like delinquents.

kellaman123

The OP seems to be talking about getting his belt out and beating his or others kids. I cannot agree with that. Regardless of my opinion, it is not as if there is only two options available to parents, do nothing or beat their kids.

I did not refer at any time to taking of my belt and beating my kids or any other kids (I don't have any kids as it happens). I was merely making the point that corporal punishment can have an important role to play in disciplining kids. I received the belt growing up and I'm sure a lot of other people did and I don't feel that all parents who used it back then were abusers and all who received it were abused, on the contrary I grew up in a very loving home with great parents.

I'm aware of the fact that it's not exactly PC today to discipline kids in this way and the law comes down heavy on anyone who does it. I'm just stating that maybe if it was permitted we might see less teenage yobs misbehaving!

reprazant

kellaman123 wrote: »

I did not refer at any time to taking of my belt and beating my kids or any other kids (I don't have any kids as it happens).

Well, in your OP you asked the following

kellaman123 wrote: »

Do we need a return to the days of the belt and the wooden spoon?

and repeatedly stated that a good dose of the belt or the wooden spoon does not harm. If you didn't say it, you seem to be implying it quite a bit. Now, I got the wooden spoon as a kid but there is a massive difference between getting smacked with the wooden spoon and getting the belt.

kellaman123 wrote: »

I'm aware of the fact that it's not exactly PC today to discipline kids in this way and the law comes down heavy on anyone who does it.

This is just rubbish. If you are of the opinion that the only way to disciple a child is through using a belt, then I don't know. As I said, there is a gap as wide as the grand canyon between spoiling a child and belting them with a belt as the go to way of disciple.

kellaman123

reprazant wrote: »

Well, in your OP you asked the following



and repeatedly stated that a good dose of the belt or the wooden spoon does not harm. If you didn't say it, you seem to be implying it quite a bit. Now, I got the wooden spoon as a kid but there is a massive difference between getting smacked with the wooden spoon and getting the belt.



This is just rubbish. If you are of the opinion that the only way to disciple a child is through using a belt, then I don't know. As I said, there is a gap as wide as the grand canyon between spoiling a child and belting them with a belt as the go to way of disciple.

Yes in my OP I did ask the question do we need to return to the days of the wooden spoon and the belt and I have indicated in my postings that I myself received it and it may have some merits in punishing teens for yobbish behaviour. I did not at any time state that it was the only method of discipline that should be used and I did indeed state that in my home while growing up it was a deterrent more than anything else. You seem to have misinterpreted my previous postings somewhat. Am I to believe from your last comment that you would not condone belting a kid but you think it's ok to use a wooden spoon because that's how you were punished?

reprazant

I'd like to think I wouldn't use the wooden spoon but then I'd imagine my parents felt the same as well. I know people who never got slapped when young and they don't go around acting like nobs.

With regards it being used as a deterrent for anti-social behaviour, I would imagine that most of those who are engaged in serious anti-social behaviour got the back of the hand at the very least while growing up.

kellaman123

reprazant wrote: »

I'd like to think I wouldn't use the wooden spoon but then I'd imagine my parents felt the same as well. I know people who never got slapped when young and they don't go around acting like nobs.

With regards it being used as a deterrent for anti-social behaviour, I would imagine that most of those who are engaged in serious anti-social behaviour got the back of the hand at the very least while growing up.

You see I'm not so sure that kids acting up today or engaging in antisocial behaviour as teenagers have received any discipline not even the back of the hand. I work closely with AGS and have a number of friends in it and they would say that the type of kids they see causing mayhem on the streets have disinterested parents who don't really give a toss. There appears to be no discipline at all. I take your point that there are a number of people who were never slapped and turned out ok but there are a cohort of young people who do not learn or modify their behaviour with a passive approach to discipline and for them corporal punishment may have its use. I'm not talking about battering these kids with belts, wooden spoons whatever but I think if it's there as a last resort and more importantly a deterrent it may be useful. Just my opinion and I know it's probably not a popular one!

pwurple

Teaching children the rules of how to function in society are certainly needed. How that manifests itself though is another question.

I was out with a friend for lunch a few days ago, with our children who are about the same ages. She is a firm believer in smacking, I am with-holding judgement for the moment... I've not ruled it out, but haven't seen a situation that needed it yet. Anyway, both children started getting bored/hungry waiting for food around the same time, got a bit whingey and started to bang on the furniture. I reached into my bag and took out some colouring pencils and a book for my kid to keep her busy. She took her child outside, smacked her and brought her back in again. Child had tears running down face, but sat down.

Both children sat quietly after that. So you could say both methods had the same effect. We've both done the same things before with the same children, so I don't think either is teaching the child faster or better how to behave. They probably just don't have the capacity yet to sit quietly for long enough at that age.

Other parents would possibly have done neither, and let the children make a total nuisance of themselves to other patrons. This is where you will probably see problems, when the children are learning that annoying behaviour is normal, instead of it being stopped straight away.

The options are not just "let kids run amok" vs "smack them". There are loads of ways of showing kids how to behave and what is socially acceptable.

kellaman123

pwurple wrote: »

Teaching children the rules of how to function in society are certainly needed. How that manifests itself though is another question.

I was out with a friend for lunch a few days ago, with our children who are about the same ages. She is a firm believer in smacking, I am with-holding judgement for the moment... I've not ruled it out, but haven't seen a situation that needed it yet. Anyway, both children started getting bored/hungry waiting for food around the same time, got a bit whingey and started to bang on the furniture. I reached into my bag and took out some colouring pencils and a book for my kid to keep her busy. She took her child outside, smacked her and brought her back in again. Child had tears running down face, but sat down.

Both children sat quietly after that. So you could say both methods had the same effect. We've both done the same things before with the same children, so I don't think either is teaching the child faster or better how to behave. They probably just don't have the capacity yet to sit quietly for long enough at that age.

Other parents would possibly have done neither, and let the children make a total nuisance of themselves to other patrons. This is where you will probably see problems, when the children are learning that annoying behaviour is normal, instead of it being stopped straight away.

The options are not just "let kids run amok" vs "smack them". There are loads of ways of showing kids how to behave and what is socially acceptable.

I think you simplify the issue somewhat and what you describe worked for your child but it may not have been suitable for your friends child. As you say yourself both methods had the desired effect. If it was only as easy as taking out a colouring book and pencils when a child misbehaves to make them tow the line. What do you suggest doing with the teenager who is terrorising pensioners or vandalising the neighbourhood? I can't see your colouring book and pencils being much use then. Mind you neither would a smack be of much use either and that's when the belt might be needed

mariaalice

I do not agree with hitting children as deterrent , however I would not make it illegal for parents to slap their chid simply because it is too much pressure for parents.

AS this is a thread about why men agree with it, I am going to make a wild generalisation and say, it is because men tend to be more cut and dried in their approach to issues and look for what they perceive to a be a quick simple and effective approach to the issue, physical punishment for teenagers is a bizarre idea, what I think is a good idea is restorative justice, which would involve the young person (and if under 18 their parents) being made meet the victim and listen to them,( by force if necessary) and being made pay a monetary contribution which would come from their social welfare or from any paid employment they may have. I acutely think making the perpetrator feel embarrassment and maybe shame at what they have done is an effective way of stopping further behaviour.

I feel I am also in the camp of people who simply feel that if I use violence to solve - or resolve - a situation then I have simply failed in that situation. That includes - for me - the use of any level of violence in addressing behaviour in children.

pwurple

kellaman123 wrote: »

I think you simplify the issue somewhat and what you describe worked for your child but it may not have been suitable for your friends child. As you say yourself both methods had the desired effect. If it was only as easy as taking out a colouring book and pencils when a child misbehaves to make them tow the line. What do you suggest doing with the teenager who is terrorising pensioners or vandalising the neighbourhood? I can't see your colouring book and pencils being much use then. Mind you neither would a smack be of much use either and that's when the belt might be needed

You're completely missing the point. My point was both of us took action which worked. The problem is when noone bothers doing either.

kellaman123

pwurple wrote: »

You're completely missing the point. My point was both of us took action which worked. The problem is when noone bothers doing either.

Yes I agree with that! The problem is most certainly when nothing is done!

Mr Viking

It's crazy the amount of times this issue comes up and how divided people are on it. Personally I'm with the OP. There was nothing that made me wise up when behaving like a dickhead as a kid than the oul fella taking the belt off. It wasn't abuse it was discipline and there's a lot of youngsters today that could be doing with it.

pwurple

kellaman123 wrote: »

Yes I agree with that! The problem is most certainly when nothing is done!

Also, the same principle holds for teenagers as for toddlers... They are misbehaving because they are bored some of the time. Distraction is as likely to be as effective as beating them with a belt.

I was working as a 16 year old. Granted it was washing dishes in a factory, but my parents arranged that job for me. Kept me from hanging around on street corners anyway.

kellaman123

pwurple wrote: »

Also, the same principle holds for teenagers as for toddlers... They are misbehaving because they are bored some of the time. Distraction is as likely to be as effective as beating them with a belt.

I was working as a 16 year old. Granted it was washing dishes in a factory, but my parents arranged that job for me. Kept me from hanging around on street corners anyway.

Your point is..........

mariaalice

If it is not the only method that works?,( I would be doubtful if it works because how come when we had public hanging and public floggings, they was violence how come it was not a deterrent??, do you want to use it for a deterrent or a punishment?

If non violent methods such as restorative justices or any other method works at reducing crime why choose a violent method?

pwurple

kellaman123 wrote: »

Your point is..........

You want words with fewer syllables, or me to draw you a diagram?

Call Me Jimmy

My point would be that I don't deny that the belt can provide discipline, with immediate results, but I think though it may take more time/effort, other forms of disciplining can be at least as effective and an awful lot less risky in terms of development. This is assuming that outside of what constitutes disciplinary violence a parent is loving.

So what I'm saying is that it is lazy and potentially damaging. If you're going to have kids there's no room to be lazy in your approach to developing them.

Would people who are in favour of corporal punishment train dogs the same way? Would you take a belt to a dog?

tomh1736

mariaalice wrote: »

If it is not the only method that works?,( I would be doubtful if it works because how come when we had public hanging and public floggings, they was violence how come it was not a deterrent??, do you want to use it for a deterrent or a punishment?

If non violent methods such as restorative justices or any other method works at reducing crime why choose a violent method?

I think corporal punishment is very effective as a deterrent when used judicially as I have mentioned previously in my example of caning in Singspore where it really brings down the rate of public order offences considerably. I think this thread is more concerned with corporal punishment in the home with children and particularly teenagers

Mr Viking

[quote="Call Me Jimmy;89317670"

Would people who are in favour of corporal punishment train dogs the same way? Would you take a belt to a dog?[/quote]

No I wouldn't take a belt to my dog any more than I would feed a kid dog biscuits and have them go fetch. It's hardly the same thing

mariaalice

No one has answered the question of why when there was public hanging and public floggings and corporal punishment in the home and schools, there was still violent crime by young people why didn't punishment by the state and punishment by parents and punishment in schools produce a crime free society?

eviltwin

I've managed to raise one child to 17 without ever having to raise a hand, funny she's turned out really well. Using the same methods now with my 4 year old who is a much more challenging child and so far so good. There are plenty of alternatives to violence out there that work, the problem is parents are too lazy to research them and put them into practice.

Waking-Dreams

mariaalice wrote: »

No one has answered the question of why when there was public hanging and public floggings and corporal punishment in the home and schools, there was still violent crime by young people why didn't punishment by the state and punishment by parents and punishment in schools produce a crime free society?

And I doubt you will get an honest answer to that valid point, as many people will just recall anecdotal examples where a bit of corporal punishment ‘did the trick’ when nothing else ‘seemed’ to work.

They might also draw an illusory negative correlation between the lack of widespread corporal punishment today and the proclaimed increase in levels of anti-social behaviour or ‘lack of respect’ from young people.

Of course, you will never get a crime free society but I think claims of things being worse than ever are exaggerated and are being made because of selective abstraction.

Waking-Dreams

tomh1736 wrote: »

I think corporal punishment is very effective as a deterrent when used judicially as I have mentioned previously in my example of caning in Singapore where it really brings down the rate of public order offences considerably. I think this thread is more concerned with corporal punishment in the home with children and particularly teenagers

While you’re spot on about Singapore having a very low crime rate, what is worth mentioning is that according to a Gallup Poll Singaporeans have the lowest levels of happiness or positive emotions – they’re even less happy than the people in Iraq, Haiti, Afghanistan and Syria.

I do think the move away from corporal punishment, brought on by recognising the rights of children and all the abuse scandals, may have tipped things too far in the opposite direction, where parents don’t want to lay down boundaries or want to be “best friends” with their children and let them get away with everything.

Self-esteem based education from America didn’t help matters either; where children are being told they’re special and are given medals and prizes for merely taking part. This doesn’t help build self-esteem and if recent research is to be believed it has actually increased the likelihood of teenagers showing narcissistic tendencies, which could account for their disregard for others.

However, to suggest that what is lacking is a clip around the head or the crack of a belt does indeed ignore what research tells us about this kind of parenting. It can be argued that it is the lack of ANY parental discipline and the emphasis on self-esteem based education which has the current young generation the way they are, not the removal of physical punishment.

Peregrinus

tomh1736 wrote: »

I think corporal punishment is very effective as a deterrent when used judicially as I have mentioned previously in my example of caning in Singspore where it really brings down the rate of public order offences considerably. I think this thread is more concerned with corporal punishment in the home with children and particularly teenagers

Singapore does have low crime rates, but this isn't proof that "corporal punishment works"; there are many other factors that could account for it. Sentencing generally is tough; despite having much lower crime rates that Ireland, Singapore has much higher imprisonment rates (Ireland: 96 prisoners per 100,000 people; Singapore: 391 prisoners per 100,000 people). Offending rates for crimes which carry corporal punishment are not better, relative to Ireland, than offending rates for crimes which do not, indicating that whatever accounts for the low crime rate, it isn't corporal punishment.

Generally, studies suggest, that what deters potential criminals is not the length or severity of the sentence they might get, but their perception of how likely it is that they will be caught at all. Improved detection rates affect crime figures in a way that tougher sentences generally don't. And here we may be on to something; Singapore has 752 police officers per 100,000 of the population, compared to 261 in Ireland. I'm thinking this has a lot more to do with low crime rates than the birch does.

sillyoulfool

mariaalice wrote: »

No one has answered the question of why when there was public hanging and public floggings and corporal punishment in the home and schools, there was still violent crime by young people why didn't punishment by the state and punishment by parents and punishment in schools produce a crime free society?

Whatever about flogging or hanging ( way OTT) when there was corporal punishments in both school and more importantly the home there was nowhere near the incidence of juvenile crime not the serious nature of modern juvenile crime.
How many teens in the 60's and 70's carried guns? carried knives? and were routinely engaged in anti-social behaviour and vandalism.
One need not just look to the crime stats to see the level of juvenile crime in modern society, look also at the huge numbers of teens with JLO's (Juvenile Liason Orders) which are issued by the Gardaí in preference to criminal prosecution.
However that said I doubt if anyone is favouring a return to the excesses that were evidenced on an everyday basis by those who attended school (particularly schools run by religious orders) in the past.

tomh1736

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Whatever about flogging or hanging ( way OTT) when there was corporal punishments in both school and more importantly the home there was nowhere near the incidence of juvenile crime not the serious nature of modern juvenile crime.
How many teens in the 60's and 70's carried guns? carried knives? and were routinely engaged in anti-social behaviour and vandalism.
One need not just look to the crime stats to see the level of juvenile crime in modern society, look also at the huge numbers of teens with JLO's (Juvenile Liason Orders) which are issued by the Gardaí in preference to criminal prosecution.
However that said I doubt if anyone is favouring a return to the excesses that were evidenced on an everyday basis by those who attended school (particularly schools run by religious orders) in the past.

I would have to agree that returning corporal punishment to the school would not be a good idea and I think given the excesses in which it was used in Irish Schools in the past, most teachers would never want to partake in it.
In the home however I would agree with you that if it were used more frequently it would reduce juvenile crime.
Its ridiculous that 20-30 years ago smacking a child or using a wooden spoon or a belt was perfectly normal and these days its deemed abuse. Why is this?

Waking-Dreams

tomh1736 wrote: »

Its ridiculous that 20-30 years ago smacking a child or using a wooden spoon or a belt was perfectly normal and these days its deemed abuse. Why is this?

It was perfectly normal for men to physically hit their wives several decades ago but to do so nowadays is seen as abusive. I don’t think anyone would ask ‘why?’ in this instance, do you? We have progressed as a society.

Also, not everyone would define a smack as abuse either.

kellaman123

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

It was perfectly normal for men to physically hit their wives several decades ago but to do so nowadays is seen as abusive. I don’t think anyone would ask ‘why?’ in this instance, do you? We have progressed as a society.

Also, not everyone would define a smack as abuse either.

I don't think it was ever deemed perfectly normal for men to hit their wives even several decades ago. Parents have however for centuries used corporal punishment in disciplining kids and still do today. There are no laws in this country that do not permit. I think what the previous poster was getting at is why has certain punishments used 20 years ago become abusive I don't think it's enough to say that society has moved on.

234

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Whatever about flogging or hanging ( way OTT) when there was corporal punishments in both school and more importantly the home there was nowhere near the incidence of juvenile crime not the serious nature of modern juvenile crime.
How many teens in the 60's and 70's carried guns? carried knives? and were routinely engaged in anti-social behaviour and vandalism.
One need not just look to the crime stats to see the level of juvenile crime in modern society, look also at the huge numbers of teens with JLO's (Juvenile Liason Orders) which are issued by the Gardaí in preference to criminal prosecution.
However that said I doubt if anyone is favouring a return to the excesses that were evidenced on an everyday basis by those who attended school (particularly schools run by religious orders) in the past.

Don't make claims that you can't back up.

Levels of juvenile crime have fluctuated greatly over the last 60 years. However, any blanket assertion that the end of corporal punishment has led to an increase in seriousness can't be substantiated.

Read para 5.8 http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/downloads/CrimeReport.pdf

Waking-Dreams

kellaman123 wrote: »

I don't think it was ever deemed perfectly normal for men to hit their wives even several decades ago. Parents have however for centuries used corporal punishment in disciplining kids and still do today. There are no laws in this country that do not permit. I think what the previous poster was getting at is why has certain punishments used 20 years ago become abusive I don't think it's enough to say that society has moved on.

It was certainly permitted by society, due to its prevalence, in the same way that physically hitting the kids was also permitted. People knew it was going on but looked the other way in most cases. By the late 1970s there was a noticeable shift but it still took until 1996 until there was a comprehensive Domestic Violence Act.

Anyways, the point about certain punishments now being deemed ‘abusive’… well, it depends who you ask, not everyone will deem a slight smack as abusive, rather they will say that there are more effective ways to enforce discipline.

But of course it is because society has moved on. How else do we account for all the changes in social norms and values? Before the 1970s bullying was something that was not seen as a big deal. ‘Boys will be boys’ etc., was the typical response. Today, that is clearly not the case. Why? Because we all recognise that bullying damages people and this could only have come about from an increased awareness about the well-being and rights of children, young people, etc.

sillyoulfool

234 wrote: »

Don't make claims that you can't back up.

Levels of juvenile crime have fluctuated greatly over the last 60 years. However, any blanket assertion that the end of corporal punishment has led to an increase in seriousness can't be substantiated.

Read para 5.8 http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/downloads/CrimeReport.pdf

From that report:
Robberies
It can be seen that

the line for robbery starts from a very low base and is essentially flat until the late 1960s. After the

early 1970s it rises very steeply until 1983. The line drops a little irregularly from 1983 to 1989 and

then begins another steep climb that continues, with a temporary fall in 1993 and 1994, until a peak in

1996. The line then drops until the end of the period.

There were 26 recorded robberies in 1950, 3,202 in 1996 (the high point) and 1,831 in 1998. Over the

whole period, this results in growth by a factor of 70. The percentage rise to the high point in 1996 is

12,215 per cent. Some caution must be exercised in interpreting this last figure because of the very

small numbers of robberies recorded at the beginning of the period. Nevertheless, there has been a

substantial rise in the number of robberies recorded and it is unlikely that this can be explained just in

terms of changes in recording practice. It is more probable that the line for robbery is picking up on a

real change in behaviour.





Armed Offences
There is broad similarity between the line for armed crime in Figure 11 and that for robbery in Figure

10. The major difference between the two is that the line for armed crime shows dramatic rises and

falls over a small number of years. The two lines are similar in that they describe a rapid rise in these

offences in the early 1970s, followed by falls in the 1980s after which the trend of the lines is upward.

Misc Larcenies
First, the line for miscellaneous

larceny rises less sharply in the late 1970s to the early 1980s and, at the very end of the period, it can

be seen that the miscellaneous larceny line flicks upwards.

So all the stats in that report show a huge increase in Juvenile crime over the last 40 years.

All Hail President Murphy

For adults yes. for school kids, no.

The only thing some people understand is pain.

monocled mutiner

Given that I am undoubtedly a good bit older than most people posting on this forum at 67 years of age I might if I please put forward my opinion on the issue of corporal punishment. Growing up in a small town in Co Mayo it was common place and no one thought it was that out of the ordinary for children to be smacked. My father was the disciplinarian in our house and he wasn't afraid at all to lash out when it was needed. I do feel that every time he smacked myself and my brothers and sisters we deserved it and we learnt a hard lesson. What amazes me today is the lack of respect for authority with our young people. The majority I am sure are good youngsters but I have witnessed at first hand a few terrorising people and causing trouble in my community and a lot of them cant be any older than maybe 15. I remember growing up in the 50's we had one garda in our town to police a community of maybe 1000 people. The young people in the town respected him and his title. I can remember a few times he may have had to have a harsh word with us and that was usually enough. If it wasn't and he felt we needed to be punished he had no qualms in doing it. What he would do is take of his leather uniform belt and with the support of our parents give us a few lashes on the behind. I remember watching the London riots on television at the time and seeing those young hooligans terrorising communites, destroying business and doing all sorts. It made me think that a return to the old values may be the best way forward. If we had those policemen in a position where they could take them off the street and birch them on take a belt to them the whole problem might not have happened at all

walshb

Assault is assault. When people are forced to resort to assault or violence or striking to discipline their children then there's a breakdown. I know well that children can really test their parents' resolve, but to physically strike or assault your child doesn't sit well with me. I was rarely ever smacked and I turned out fine. There is no proof to show that children who get smacked or beaten are somehow more "well behaved."

Hippo

Monicled,

I won't attempt to change your opinion that your father's physical abuse of you and your siblings was beneficial to you, I wouldn't know where to start really. Would all your siblings, including your sisters, agree?

Society has of course changed enormously since those days, in some ways for the better and in some ways for the worse. You can't put the cork back in the bottle though - the unquestioning acceptance of 'authority' in the past allowed institutional abuse to flourish, and that is (hopefully) no longer possible or at least seen as shameful. Of course, by the same token, a dirty look from the local Garda isn't going to put a lot of kids off any more.

I do think that the absence of proper parental supervision of kids is a huge contributory factor to juvenile 'delinquency', for want of a better word; and by 'proper' I mean genuine engagement with their children, not beating them with a belt whenever the dad thinks it's appropriate. That is, frankly, savage behaviour which advances nothing but resentment and reinforces a child's negativity, while teaching them that might is right and that it's ok to behave in a brutal fashion towards your 'loved ones'. This seems so obvious I can hardly believe I have to say it.

For the record, I'm 53 years old and have 2 grown up kids.

Waking-Dreams

Could those advocating a return to corporal punishment please demonstrate how they can determine it was the physical punishment alone which caused the desired result in behaviour? (And anecdotes are not really enough here folks).

In other words, how do you know it wasn’t the enforcement of boundaries or other non-physical consequences which had the actual impact? If things are worse today, is that because many parents don’t use physical punishment or because many parents don’t use ANY real punishment and let their children get away with things for the sake of an easy life? We also have new technology today which did not exist before. The Online Disinhibition Effect can also account for some of the lack of respect we see in teenagers (and adults too!). We also live in larger communities today where anonymity is larger than it once was.

Nowadays, both parents usually have to work, which means that there aren’t the same hours in the day to be the full-time stay-at-home parent like in years gone by. A developing child will likely push their parents’ level of patience at times and after a stressful day at work, we can all appreciate that coming home to an impulsive child can create a real challenge for parents who at times will undoubtedly look for a quick solution.

In the past, widespread physical punishment was that solution. Today, perhaps, parents just give their children what they want too often because it seems to make the children happy. Maybe the parents feel guilty about spending so much time away from their kids at work and just want what little time they do have to be as hassle-free as possible.

walshb

What I cannot fathom or tolerate is those parents who strike/smack and hit their children as a 1st resort. Any little "mistake" their child makes and they're getting smacked or shouted at. It's obscene, and IMO it's nasty!

BTW, I am not completely anti smacking. I know there are extreme times where a parent is at their wits end and resort to a short and sharp smack. Also, if a child really does something that frightens the life out of a parent, this can result in a short and sharp smack. Done purely out of fear and horror. It's those who smack for the sake of it, and those who smack/strike with real intent that bugs me something fierce. They want to physically inflict pain. I just abhor this.

Waking-Dreams

Just to return to the OP's question. According to this study by TCD, it states that:

Fathers were more likely than mothers to state that smacking should remain legal.

Parents who had been slapped themselves in childhood were less likely to state that physical punishment should be made illegal.

It also adds:

Given that parents rarely use one discipline strategy in isolation, future research that considers the effectiveness of different combinations of parental discipline strategies, including inductive and more coercive strategies, would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of these issues. More research on the links between parenting styles and discipline and child outcomes is needed in an Irish context.

So, it is likely that those remembering the days of the belt are not taking into account that that may have been just one aspect of their upbringing.

walshb

I never understood the whole "I was whacked a lot and it never did me any harm." As if harm is somehow measurable. I really doubt it was enjoyable to be whacked about as a child.

So, there is the harm straight away. What child wants to be whacked about? Or what child feels nothing emotionally or physically when whacked? Or what child doesn't fear being whacked for doing something "wrong?" To live in a house where you fear being assaulted is harm!

Littered with harm if you ask me!

Waking-Dreams

A crucial point about people claiming their own childhood upbringing, which included physical punishment, did them no harm is that, well, they have nothing else to compare it to. Unless you were raised alongside an identical twin that was treated differently, you are a product of your upbringing (nature and nurture) one way or the other.

So, if you say the physical punishment ‘did it’, you can never truly say with full certainty that you wouldn’t have turned out the same had your parents tried a different approach. This is why research is more valuable than anecdotes because it removes the appraisal process from the individual and examines the effects of parenting by comparing control groups to experimental groups, etc.

walshb

Grayfoxy wrote: »

Anyway, it would seem that the people who were smacked as a child would agree it does work (like myself)

Can I ask were you smacked regularly as a child?

mariaalice

This is from the wiki on the subject of parenting styles

.Authoritative parenting Described by Baumrind as the "just right" style, in combines a medium level demands on the child and a medium level responsiveness from the parents. Authoritative parents rely on positive reinforcement and infrequent use of punishment. Parents are more aware of a child's feelings and capabilities and support the development of a child's autonomy within reasonable limits. There is a give-and-take atmosphere involved in parent-child communication and both control and support are balanced. Research shows that this style is more beneficial than the too-hard authoritarian style or the too-soft permissive style.

Authoritarian parenting styles Authoritarian parents are very rigid and strict. They place high demands on the child, but are not responsive to the child. Parents who practice authoritarian style parenting have a rigid set of rules and expectations that are strictly enforced and require rigid obedience. When the rules are not followed, punishment is most often used to promote future obedience.[12] There is usually no explanation of punishment except that the child is in trouble for breaking a rule.[12] "Because I said so" is a typical response to a child's question of authority. This type of authority is used more often in working-class families than the middle class. In 1983 Diana Baumrind found that children raised in an authoritarian-style home were less cheerful, more moody and more vulnerable to stress. In many cases these children also demonstrated passive hostility.

Permissive parenting Permissive or indulgent parenting is more popular in middle-class families than in working-class families. In these family settings, a child's freedom and autonomy are highly valued, and parents tend to rely mostly on reasoning and explanation. Parents are undemanding, so there tends to be little, if any punishment or explicit rules in this style of parenting. These parents say that their children are free from external constraints and tend to be highly responsive to whatever the child wants at the moment. Children of permissive parents are generally happy but sometimes show low levels of self-control and self-reliance because they lack structure at home.

Uninvolved parentingAn uninvolved or neglectful parenting style is when parents are often emotionally absent and sometimes even physically absent.[13] They have little or no expectation of the child and regularly have no communication. They are not responsive to a child's needs and do not demand anything of them in their behavioral expectations. If present, they may provide what the child needs for survival with little to no engagement.[13] There is often a large gap between parents and children with this parenting style. Children with little or no communication with their own parents tended to be the victims of another child’s deviant behavior and may be involved in some deviance themselves.[14] Children of uninvolved parents suffer in social competence, academic performance, psychosocial development and problem behavior.