13 ms·
It's legal to hit children in school in 19 American states
- MoSattler 4y agohttp://archive.today/1eCAY http://archive.today/1eCAY
- themitigating 4y agoThat's whether or not the parents agree.
- MoSattler 4y agoParents are not really asked, though. Parent's consent is assumed, unless they explicitly opt their children out. > Parents can put their children on the “no paddle list”—a practice encouraged by a school in Kentucky if the child “bruises easy”, suffers from severe depression or has been physically abused—but amid the back-to-school chaos many forget to submit the necessary form.
- akira2501 4y ago> or has been physically abused Literally adding insult to injury and completely seeing through their own policy in one line item. "Let us know if your child has been abused before so we don't accidentally abuse them again."
- theGnuMe 4y agoSounds like a Federal civil rights violation. Someone should sue.
- themitigating 4y agoI didn't know that list existed and was initially happy that there was an opt out but then list or reasons parents should consider putting their child on the list just added another point to how much I hate Republicans
- fzeroracer 4y ago> In 2020 Kiory Baugh, then an ace 2nd grader in Grenada, Mississippi, was paddled by her principal even though she was on the no-paddle list. When Kiory came home from school she was in so much pain she could not sit down. The school told Julia, her mother, there was no need to take her to the hospital. Julia took her to the emergency room anyway, where the doctor told her he would have called the police if she had been hit outside of school. She missed seven days of classes to recover. After Julia complained to the district, Kiory’s teacher failed her. That summer Julia moved the family to Arkansas, where corporal punishment is less common. Alternately, even if you are on a 'no-paddle' (wtf) list, your kid can still be badly abused by the school district with no recourse.
- patrickmay 4y agoSpeaking as a father, there would be recourse.
- braingravy 4y agoTrue, you could move away. That would be after a stranger inflicts physical trauma upon your child, however. Might be best to avoid that altogether?
- kurthr 4y agoI'm not sure you (or perhaps even the parent comment?) quite realize what "recourse" by a father would mean in Mississippi. I read that as, shooting the principal dead and possibly turning yourself in to the police. If you're white, you'll probably get off with jail time. If you're dark skinned or non-christian probably suicide by cop to avoid the unpleasant (in)justice. It's about protecting other children and making future principals think twice. The US is a large country with highly variable laws and customs. Just as parts of Europe refer to other parts of Europe as 'North Africa'... when you say Florida or Missippi in the US it has a similar twang.
- braingravy 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- robocat 4y agohttps://archive.vn/1eCAY https://archive.vn/1eCAY (if the .today link doesn’t work for you. Edit: archive.today still gives me a 502 and .vn works)
- jimbo99912 4y agoThere's some law on the books (Texas maybe?) about it being a hanging offense to engage in cattle wrustling. Perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly. This is likely to be a similar sort of law (or lack of a law saying it isn't allowed), where it may technically be true that this is allowed but realistically you would end up in all sorts of legal trouble for hitting students.
- MoSattler 4y agoFrom the article: > In 2018, the year for which the latest numbers are available, 69,000 American children were hit by public-school staff
- jimbo9991 4y agoI stand corrected, that's wild.
- RajT88 4y agoFrom my generation at least (teenagers from the 90's), I heard stories not of beatings, but getting whacked on the knuckles by nuns in private catholic schools. The private catholic schools in my town being a mix of kids with religious parents, bad kids who got kicked out of public high schools and parents who didn't want a co-ed education for their kids.
- bsder 4y ago> There's some law on the books (Texas maybe?) about it being a hanging offense to engage in cattle wrustling. Perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly. You are not wrong: "cattle rustling" is indeed still a hanging offense in Texas. What makes this a bit interesting is that, technically, if you eat a steak and then don't pay for it, you have engaged in "cattle rustling". So, dine and dash at a steakhouse could legally be punished by a hanging.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> This is likely to be a similar sort of law (or lack of a law saying it isn't allowed), where it may technically be true that this is allowed but realistically you would end up in all sorts of legal trouble for hitting students. It is not; in fact, the reason states mostly have some explicit treatment in law, is that this waa tested the whole way up to the Supreme Court—Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977)—which found, that, in the absence of specific state law to the contrary, corporal punishment, by public schools, without parental consent or even notice, was Constitutionally permissible. Even people that support corporal punishment in schools often weren’t happy about this. There's no secret additional layer of law beyond the overt ones which will get people in trouble for this.
- rom-antics 4y agoCan the children defend themselves, or are they legally required to passively accept the beatings? If you're going to beat people's kids, at least level the playing field.
- curiousllama 4y agoThere’s actually formal combat rules, similar to dueling. It’s fairly progressive for that part of the world
- FeistySkink 4y agoHow is a child supposed to defend themselves from an adult? Edit: The question was rhetorical, to point out the absurdity of the situation.
- sam36 4y ago[flagged]
- WithinReason 4y agoFair enough
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoI’d be curious if assault charges have been levied against a child who fought back a violent teacher.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoOpt out child beating is not something I ever would have dreamed was still going on in America. At the bare minimum make it opt in.
- eh9 4y agoLet the kids press charges.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoIt's legal in those states, what charges could they press?
- eh9 4y agoIt’s violence performed by state actors or businesses with liabilities. In my opinion, it’s child abuse.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago>violence performed by state actors or business with liabilities. Which is permitted by their state laws. >In my opinion, it’s child abuse I agree.
- eh9 4y agoThose laws allow the state to ignore the consent of children. We can, and should, find those laws federally unconstitutional.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoViolence and the threat of violence for breaking the law and lawful commands of "state actors" is the foundation of the entire system of government. I don't think you've stumbled on some clever hack.
- EMIRELADERO 4y agoCorporal punishment by parents is allowed in even more states. I see that as much graver. EDIT: This is still serious and bad. Please don't misinterpret me.
- NelsonMinar 4y agoOne thing I love about reading the Economist is the non-American perspective it gives me on American news. In the US we call this "corporeal punishment" or "spanking" and pretend like it's rare, no big deal, and maybe necessary. The Economist doesn't mince words referring to it as "hit", "beat", "strike", "hurt", and finally "criminal assault".
- MoSattler 4y agoI guess it's the European perspective, where most countries have outlawed any c̵o̵r̵p̵o̵r̵e̵a̵l̵ corporal punishment.
- afandian 4y agoAsking out of pure curiosity, as you repeated that spelling. In the UK we say “corporal” not “corporeal”. Is the latter standard in US English?
- jackson1442 4y agoCorporal is standard in the US as well, may be confusing the terms because "corporeal" does (loosely) mean "of the flesh" as well.
- czx4f4bd 4y agoIt's not. "Corporal punishment" is the correct spelling in the US, too.
- rayiner 4y agoIts corporal punishment in the US too. Corporeal means having a physical body.
- enkid 4y agoEdit: Language is a construct set by society. Merriam Webster states corporal punishment is the correct term, but corporeal is the word that means "of the body." Corporal used to mean of the body but is not used that way outside the specific term corporal punishment. Ignore the below. Corporal is a rank in the military. Corporeal (pronounced something like core pore ree al) is having to do with a person's body, but isn't used in often outside of the phrase "corporeal punishment."
- nimbius 4y ago[flagged]
- jey 4y ago> The US also still refuses to adopt the UN rights of the child. Interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Conve...
- eh9 4y agoThe ONLY remaining hold out in the UN. Republicans will not pass this because it calls for children to receive, among other things, access to health care.
- lax4ever 4y agoThe UN Convention on the Rights of a Child specifically does not mention the use of corporal punishment and makes no binding requirement of any of its signatories to refrain from the use of corporal punishment. Such interpretations that have been attempted to be made from articles within the Convention have been rejected by multiple nations, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
- belfalas 4y agoI was friends with someone who did Teach for America in Mississippi. They paddled the kids in the school which my friend at first found shocking, she refused to participate. The explanation that made the most "sense" was that, at home, corporal punishment was how the parents disciplined the kids. So if at school all you got was a verbal warning the kids wouldn't take it seriously. IMHO by the time corporal punishment becomes 'the answer' there are way bigger structural issues to examine.
- kube-system 4y ago> IMHO by the time corporal punishment becomes 'the answer' there are way bigger structural issues to examine. If this is what's notable about education there, you're probably right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada,_Mississippi#Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada,_Mississippi#Education
- roughly 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_God_for_Mississippi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_God_for_Mississippi
- grecy 4y agoMy Dad was a teacher in Australia when that kind of thing was still legal. It was his first year of teaching (so he was about 22) and he only ever did it to one kid who was a notorious trouble making. He was telling me just before Christmas that he still remembers that kid's name, and still regrets doing it and wishes he didn't. My Dad is now 71 years old.
- tptacek 4y agoA quick note that while MS obviously doesn't ban corporal punishment statewide, the largest school system in MS does. Even in MS, the case study that leads the article, it's clear to most adults that corporal punishment of students is unacceptable.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoI went to school in Mississippi in the late 80s. While corporal punishment was definitely in the student handbook as being possible, I actually never heard of anyone getting it. I heard the private school was more liberal with it than our public middle/high schools.
- LarryMullins 4y agoHitting kids usually isn't acceptable or productive. But sometimes, rarely, it is appropriate. For instance, if a large kid is beating up a smaller kid, it may be appropriate to give the bully a small taste of what he's dishing out. A few spanks does more harm to their dignity than anything else but gets the point across. Of course I wouldn't tolerate actual beating of children. The one time my father ever spanked me was after I attacked my little brother with a wiffle ball bat. I don't hold even the slightest grudge against him for that. On the other hand, my grandfather used to beat my father severely for things his younger brothers did wrong, under the understanding that his sons would punish each other if he punished one of them. That was clearly over the line, and my father resolved to never raise his own kids like that. And he didn't. Should teachers be doing this though? I'm not sure. Teachers often don't have enough information to know when it is or isn't appropriate to spank a child. They don't really know what's going on in that kid's home-life. But maybe it is sometimes appropriate when they witness particularly egregious bullying at school.
- tptacek 4y agoIt is absolutely not appropriate to physically assault a minor to retaliate for them assaulting somebody else. We don't even tolerate that logic among adults.
- LarryMullins 4y agoCorporal punishment should be used more often for adults. It is more equitable than fining people (even when those fines are scaled with wealth), and it does less damage to society than imprisonment. Imprisonment should be reserved for cases in which the public needs to be protected from the offender. Basically, Singapore has the right idea.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> more equitable than fining people Rich kids don’t get beaten. > Singapore has the right idea See above. Corporeal punishment shares due process issues with the death penalty. If you beat the wrong guy, it’s harder to undo than unlocking the prison door.
- MrOwnPut 4y agoThey brought back spanking when I was in high school. Was kinda strange (and ineffective) at that age, but totally better than in school suspension. I opted in for it twice (uniform code violations) over iss until my parents said no, he should go to iss, he's not learning his lesson lol. As a kid I was spanked a few times, it was never that the spanking that hurt, just the fear of getting in trouble. Conflating spanking with "hitting" seems disingenuous. Personally some people I interact with today should have been spanked, or raised better in general. And no I'm not talking about not violating dress codes etc, it's fine to break the rules if you're not hurting anyone. But there's a lot of bad people that would have benefitted from discipline.
- jackson1442 4y ago> Conflating spanking with "hitting" seems disingenuous. How can you define spanking without using a term like "hitting?" > it's fine to break the rules *if you're not hurting anyone* seems odd to have the person in authority return the favor by hurting the kids as punishment
- MrOwnPut 4y ago> How can you define spanking without using a term like "hitting?" You call it spanking, or slapping on the bum. Hitting colloquially gives the impression of a closed-fist. > seems odd to have the person in authority return the favor by hurting the kids as punishment The world is not fair. You can pick and choose rules based on a moral code but things like dress code, drugs, etc. are the institutional rules and they have setup consequences, agree with them or not. And if you're hurting the child you aren't spanking, you're beating.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Hitting colloquially gives the impression of a closed-fist. Hitting does not imply closed fist.
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
- DueDilligence 4y ago.. all I can say is .. lay a hand on my kid and you best have your affairs in order.
- kube-system 4y agoI've always wondered why assault statutes don't apply in these scenarios. I presume in loco parentis is a defense? Is this something that is well tested by the courts in the places where this still takes place?
- tptacek 4y agoMy understanding is that it's explicitly drawn from English common law; it's not derived from "in loco parentis", but rather a specific exception to the rule about assault. In the states that ban it (and the major cities in most of the states that don't), it's assault, of course.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> I've always wondered why assault statutes don't apply in these scenarios. Because assault statutes have an exception for lawful force, and the applicable laws (either statute or common law) provide a legal privilege. > I presume in loco parentis is a defense? Not a “defense”, but in some schemes it may be part of the legal basis. (In states where there is a parental option, this is clearly the case.) > Is this something that is well tested by the courts in the places where this still takes place? It is worth noting that most of the explicit rules prohibiting or regulating corporal punishment are the outcome of debate in the late 70s and into the 80s triggered by a 1977 US Supreme Court decision that found, in the absence of state law to the contrary, that corporal punishment in public schools was legal, even when contrary to the express wishes of parents. Very few states had any explicit law on the issue prior to that point.
- tptacek 4y agoThe map on this school colors Illinois as on the lower, but nonzero, end of the corporal punishment spectrum. But corporal punishment is illegal in Illinois, by statute (105 ILCS 5/24-24). The Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, where the Economist sourced the data for this map, lists Illinois as one of the dark-blue states that bans corporal punishment outright.
- someweirdperson 4y agoThere is nothing in the law of some states that explicitly prevents schools from beating children. The protection that may be granted by the constitution doesn't apply to children for some reason. Did I understand this correctly?
- tptacek 4y agoMost states outlaw corporal punishment in schools, but some do not, because there is a tradition going all the way back to English common law (like, it's in Blackstone's explicitly) that moderate physical correction by schoolmasters is an exception to the general rule that people must be free from physical assault. In the states that don't currently ban corporal punishments in schools, it's likely that the municipal centers of those states do. By way of example: this article had to focus on Union County MS, which is in the middle of nowhere even for Mississippi. Jackson is the municipal center of Mississippi, and it bans corporal punishment.
- someweirdperson 4y agoThanks. I do get that there's places that don't outlaw corporal punishment. Where I am lost is that more general rules do not seem to apply. Adults cannot beat eachother without consent or ending up in criminal court. Teachers may be employed by the government, but I doubt they have the privileges of law enforcement. Rules of the schools are not even law (?!), probably closer to terms of service, which would make violations a matter of a civil court? Maybe because attending school isn't compulsory, attending voluntarily implies consent?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 4y agoFraming this as an “American” thing is disingenuous. There’s lots of countries, particularly in south and east Asia, where corporal punishment is “banned” but where’s it’s actually common in practice. For example corporal punishment was banned in Japan during the Meiji era, when it adopted a western style education system, but they passed another ban in 2020 because it remained common. Japanese people widely continue to support corporal punishment however: https://japantoday.com/category/national/survey-reveals-70-of-japanese-adults-believe-corporal-punishment-is-necessary https://japantoday.com/category/national/survey-reveals-70-o... By contrast in America it seems to be the opposite. Despite being legal it’s uncommon.
- roamerz 4y agoFrom the comments my views will definitely be in the minority here. Personal experience: Every school I attended through 12th grade had corporal punishment in place. In 5th grade I was punished by a Catholic Nun who broke a ruler over my hands as they were laying flat on the desk. It was deserved and fixed the problem at hand and by example to the other students. (haha no pun intended). I actually have a fond memory of it now as they made my parents pay for the broken ruler. We laugh about it now and then. It happened again in HS and remember being scared shitless because it was being administered by a teacher with a good rep for painful swats. It solved the issues that time as well. Neither instance caused any psychological damage to me(that i’m aware of) and helped keep our learning environment a place where people can actually go to learn. Corporal punishment is no longer practiced in my state. I would support it if it came back. It’s an effective tool.
- eh9 4y agoI don’t want to speak to your personal trauma, but child abuse is never an effective tool.
- slibhb 4y agoDefining corporeal punishment as "child abuse" is incorrect.
- cschmatzler 4y agoViolence is always abuse, and it’s significantly worse when an adult is targeting a child.
- Supermancho 4y ago> Violence is always abuse, So any form of self defense is abuse? I'm not sure you've thought this through. Trivializing complex issues is the kneejerk response for many, but there isn't a simple moral line of thinking that billions of people have overlooked.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoWhile I think corporeal punishment is wrong and should be outlawed, I also feel that there is far far too much leeway in public schools for disruptive kids. If a kid is causing ongoing disruption in classrooms it is time for them to be ejected from the school and become the parent and state government's responsibility to be put in institutions more capable of handling them. Schools are there for learning and not for babysitting disruptive children.
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoNever thought about this, but for teachers outside Mississippi, a job-gating question should be “have you ever hit a child”.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- eh9 4y agoA child in a similar situation could be removed from their home. Shouldn’t protection agencies be involved? This feels like state sponsored child abuse. When does the federal government intervine?
- dragonwriter 4y ago> A child in a similar situation could be removed from their home. No, they couldn’t; in every one of those states (and many where corporal punishment in schools is prohibited) corporal punishment by parents or guardians is permitted. > This feels like state sponsored child abuse. It is. > When does the federal government intervine? It has very little authority to, excepy perhaps via funding mandates for schools. Were children considered a suspect class under the 14th Amendment (they seem to meet the usual test, but have not been so recognized), arguably the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment might give a basis. Practically speaking, 19 states is almost enough, alone, to block Congressional action via a Senate filibuster, so even if there was a Constitutional basis, federal action would be difficult.
- eh9 4y agoWell, thank you for pointing out that I’m wrong. It doesn’t sting to be wrong, but the reality makes me feel like shit.
- vitaflo 4y agoI do remember my 5th grade teacher had a cracked paddle sitting on the chalkboard at all times. He pointed it out when we started the class and it was there as a daily reminder. This was a US public school in the mid-80s. Nobody back then had a problem with it. Certainly a different time.
- jlkweaegr 4y ago[dead]
- devwastaken 4y agoI don't believe this is true. 42 USC 1983 allows government actors to be sued for civil rights violations. Much of the precedence for capital punishment is before this, and is unlikely to be upheld. While on the books it may look legal, if parents were to bring a lawsuit they would likely win.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoThe Supreme Court has ruled on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingraham_v._Wright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingraham_v._Wright I think your mentioned law was passed after that, so maybe they'd win.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> I think your mentioned law was passed after that, It was not. 42 U.S.C. 1983, the section cited, is where Section 1 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 is codified. This was passed more than a century before Ingraham v. Wright (1977).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago> 42 USC 1983 allows government actors to be sued for civil rights violations. Corporal punishment (within the bounds articulated by Ingraham v. White) in public schools is not a civil rights violation under US federal law, so the fact that government actors can be sued for civil rights violations is immaterial. > While on the books it may look legal, if parents were to bring a lawsuit they would likely win. No, they would lose. As they did, with appeals the whole way to the Supreme Court, in Ingraham v. Wright.
- lacoolj 4y agojust because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's still happening
- boomboomsubban 4y agoFair. The article provides examples of it happening.
- genericlogic 4y agoYears ago a friend of mine was considering a teaching job in North Carolina. She didn't want to travel alone so I agreed to come to keep her company. We got to the school, met the principal and he took us for a tour. During the tour I vividly remember the principal stating the rules around corporal punishment and at first I just laughed, thinking it was just a very odd joke. I then realized he was very much serious and just played it off as me misunderstand what he was saying. As soon as the tour was done my friend and I both got in the car and decided we needed to get the ** out of there. I told this story to many people over the years and everyone thinks I'm making it up or just didn't hear right. Having a teacher tell me it's ok to hit kids felt like I stepped through a portal into another world.
- tptacek 4y agoNorth Carolina has one of the weaker municipal prohibitions on corporal punishment --- Charlotte prohibits most cases of corporal punishment, requires it to take place with another teacher as witness and away from other students, requires parental notification, and, to administer it at all, requires parental consent (albeit opt-out consent). It's not a great system. On the other hand, in the '20-'21 school year, not one instance of corporal punishment was reported in all of North Carolina. Whatever else it is in NC, it's not common. Obviously, at this point, with it so infrequent and so circumscribed, they should just ban it statewide.
- ttymck 4y agoWhat are the requirements for reporting? And what are the repercussions for failing to report?
- tptacek 4y agoI'm sure there's all sorts of unreported violence all over the place, not just in North Carolina, but we're discussing a state that explicitly authorizes corporal punishment, so the idea that they're employing it and then hiding it doesn't add up.
- deadfa11 4y agoI lived in Tennessee for a bit as a kid until about 7. The principal had this paddle hanging in his office, just menacingly looming there all the time. Every once in a while he'd hold these school-wide assemblies where the "worst" 2 or 3 kids would get paddled in front of everyone, adding this awful public humiliation. He had this fully bald head, and I have this distinct memory of his sweaty fucking face in that hot gym... I shave my head now due to some prior health issues. Every once in a while when I'm shaving, that image comes to mind and just that thought makes me boil a bit. I don't have kids, but I can't imagine how I'd react were someone doing this to them now.
- bastard_op 4y agoApparently people have forgotten the importance of a belt in the life of an impressionable child; particularly pernicious ones. I should know, I deal with them every day these days in my professional career that would have been best suited to learning the importance of an ass whipping to level-set expectations in life earlier than my having to do so. Watch Adult Swim's The Boondocks S01E03 for more details.
- vidarh 4y agoAdults that advocate child abuse like this are one of the few types of people I'd support subjecting to the kind of abuse they advocate.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kashunstva 4y ago> I deal with them every day these days in my professional career… How to explain counter-examples then? I have three children, two of whom are university graduates, successful, employed, living independently. The third is a high school student and is a highly accomplished violinist. Have I as a parent failed them, and have their schools failed them by never laying a hand on them in anger? Yes, children are impressionable. Physical assault leaves an impression. The message it imprints is authoritarian solutions to problems. Dominance plays, essentially.
- lax4ever 4y agoI remain curious about how many of these commenters for or against corporal punishment of children (to be distinguished from capital punishment, which is the allowance of a death sentence for capital crimes) have actually raised children.
- snehk 4y agoI would hope that those arguing for it don't have any. It's literally arguing for violence against others if they behave in a way you don't deem appropriate. Do people who argue in favor of it also hit their partner? I'm glad that this isn't a topic where I live. It's universally accepted that hitting children in any way, shape or form is the same as hitting another adult.
- 3pac 4y agoYou should never do anything to make your children resent you. I vividly remember an episode from third grade, when my mother yanked me around by the hair for not doing my math homework quickly enough. A dose of LSD as an adult helped me to rewind, and see how neural connections grow around that trauma, like a nail in a growing tree trunk, affecting my attitude and behavior for many years.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoIn some states its also legal for school officials to look at your kid's genitals. https://www.out.com/politics/2021/4/16/florida-lawmakers-pass-bill-legalizes-teen-genital-inspections https://www.out.com/politics/2021/4/16/florida-lawmakers-pas...
- tamaharbor 4y agoMy sister is a teacher at a public school in a low-income area of Denver, Colorado. She tells me most classrooms are like war zones, the students have very little respect for authority or each other. I don’t know if corporal punishment is the answer, but the kids need something to set them straight before they wind up in jail or worse.
- tptacek 4y agoThe evidence we have suggests that corporal punishment increases the likelihood they'll end up in jail.
- kaba0 4y agoAny such topic would benefit greatly from adding the age of the children we talk about, because I feel many people talk about different topics and have misunderstandings because of that. There is absolutely absolutely zero, nil reason to hit a small children (let’s say, below 8-10?), as they simply won’t understand the consequences and you are just assaulting the poor thing without any benefit. This is simply unforgivable and should be grounds to take away said child from the parents (depending on the degree), or press assault charges to non-parents. What seems to be more commonly acceptable (and reason for disagreement) is a spank/slap for older children (e.g. teenagers), which is quite common in certain cultures. I’m not sure on the research on that, but it should be qualified because one is imo an absolutely evil view point, while I personally don’t agree with the second, it is at least open to discussion.
- WettowelReactor 4y agoBy this reasoning there is a magical window where a person is old enough to understand the consequences of their actions yet young enough for it not to be abuse. What happens at 18 to say that corporeal punishment is no longer effective and legal? By that reasoning should corpreal punishment be allowed in the workplace?
- kaba0 4y agoI explicitly mentioned that one is an absolutely indefensible case, the other is at least open to some form of discussion even though I disagree with any corporal punishment. But that is quite common in a wide range of countries (e.g. Mexican/Asian mothers with their slippers are infamous), so there is that.
- sershe 4y ago"I bent over a chair and was given three of the best with my trousers on. I did not think he lightened his strokes. ... I have never understood why Western educationists are so much against corporal punishment. It did my fellow students and me no harm" Lee Kuan Yew. I'm curious, is there actually any evidence against institutional corporal punishment (institutional, not random abuse by parents). Or, was there any improvement in mental health or other indicators in the countries phasing it out? Going by overall numbers, mental health in the West appears to get worse and worse, the more kids (and adults) get coddled.
- api 4y ago> is there actually any evidence against institutional corporal punishment > mental health in the West appears to get worse and worse, the more kids (and adults) get coddled. It would be hard to support either assertion unless the effect were both large and universal across cultures. https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
- sershe 4y agoMy point is, if you end a practice harmful to mental health (and based on personal anecdotes from people really shocked by vestiges of it, to the point of not taking a job, people must think it's exceptionally harmful), you'd expect mental health to improve. If mental health instead declines - sure, it could be for other reasons, and you can even try to claim it would have declined more if you didn't end the practice, but you should have pretty good evidence to back that. As such, it's a weak but non-zero piece of evidence against the practice actually being harmful for mental health.
- lostmsu 4y agoLove the sources that say 19 states and then provide no list.