5 ms·
Hitting 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 m
by LarryMullins 4y ago
Hitting 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.
- LarryMullins 4y agoYou can't retroactively unimprison a man. The time you took from him can never be returned. Anyway, consider this common scenario in America: A man misses his child support payments. Do you, fine him, demanding money he doesn't have, which should otherwise have gone towards his child support payments? That doesn't work. Do you imprison him for a month, so he loses his job and can't make future payments? That harms the kids he's supposed to be making payments to, but is a common 'solution' used by American courts. Better to cane the man and set him free the same day so he can continue to work and pay off his debts.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> can't retroactively unimprison a man. The time you took from him can never be returned. But you can return the time unserved. It’s also easier to turn time into money damages than pain.
- LarryMullins 4y agoMoney cannot give you back the opportunity to raise your children.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Money cannot give you back the opportunity to raise your children It can give them a better life. Also, this article cited a star second grader beaten against her parents’ wishes, and where the doctor felt barred from filing a compliant because it was the state that beat her. The state beating kids simply doesn’t make sense.
- LarryMullins 4y agoThe simple fact of the matter is that money can neither retroactively unimprison a man, nor can it retroactively unbeat him. If you think it can do one, there's no rational reason it can't do the other. But in truth, it can't do either. Pretending that imprisonment is reversible is just a cowardly way of coping with the possibility of harming an innocent man.
- nine_k 4y agoThis has a grain of truth: it's faster for the condemned, and less expensive for the society. It could be an option for the condemned to choose: some amount of lashing, or some time of forced labor directed to restore the damage from the crime. It would be less educational and correctional though.
- LarryMullins 4y ago> It could be an option for the condemned to choose Agreed. The way I'd like to see it done is to give people convicted of non-violent or relatively minor crimes an option between being caned and being jailed. I don't think much rehabilitation goes on in county jails anyway. People are usually only there for a few weeks anyway; long enough to lose their job but probably not long enough to be rehabilitated (if such psychological services were even offered in the first place.)
- nine_k 4y agoIn this regard, I think prisons as they exist in the US are counter-productive, but that's a different kettle of fish.
- oh_sigh 4y agoWe kill people who kill people.
- spankalee 4y agoWe shouldn't
- nine_k 4y agoIf it's needed to protect the victim during the assault, yes. Otherwise, a life sentence, with the right to appeal, is more error-proof.
- kaba0 4y agoThat’s just the US’s beyond fkd up police system, though. Most of the police in Europe will actually bring the culprit to court, instead of going the medieval way of “police officer gets to be the judge and executionar” in one.
- madaxe_again 4y agoMy friend, this is the entire basis for the criminal justice system. We don’t just tolerate that logic, we have enshrined it in law. Incarceration is an assault upon the person as much as a beating is - and incarceration usually involves plenty of beatings, regardless.
- tptacek 4y agoNo, it is not the case that a police officer, observing a larger adult assaulting a smaller one (or any other permuation), is authorized to beat the assailant in retribution. If such an attack by a police officer was recorded on a bodycam, the current state of play in most of the US would end up with the officer fired, and a (likely unsuccessful) prosecution to follow.
- vidarh 4y agoThis is an argument for a reform of an abusive justice system, not for adding additional forms of abuse.
- jart 4y ago[flagged]
- Swizec 4y ago> There are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to strike a child What if they're pointing a loaded gun at you? Think I'd rather hit the kid than get shot ... https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/virginia-school-shooting/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/virginia-school-shooting/i... Or coming at you or another student with an axe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Valley_High_School_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Valley_High_School_attac... There's probably more examples we can find and I agree they are very rare. But there certainly are circumstances where the right action, in the moment, is to strike a person no matter their age.
- sfpotter 4y agoWhat would hitting a child accomplish in either of those cases? If you're able to disarm the child or remove everyone in the vicinity to safety, would you still feel the need to beat them? To what end?
- Swizec 4y agoHow would you disarm them without using physical force though? Especially as someone who likely wasn't trained in the art of hand-to-hand combat against an armed assailant. I'm not saying beat them up, I'm saying stop them.
- LarryMullins 4y agoPunishments should never be creative. That's an invitation for cruel and unusual punishment. Disciplining a child is not an appropriate time to exercise your imagination.
- lr4444lr 4y agoI don't think you deserve a down vote because it sounds like you mean well, but you're wrong: kids who physically intimidate usually do so because they face violence or threat of it at home, so it's normalized. EDIT: I will fully admit however that I threatened and will make good on the promise to hit my toddler son if he runs into the street again. He has done this multiple times already after receiving verbal warnings, shouts, and removal of privileges. My naturally more obedient older child never needed more than a simple directive not do it. Go figure - some kids are different. I am sad that it had to come to that, but it's not a lesson I can afford to have him make mistakes on and learn slowly.
- jimmaswell 4y agoA lot of people are just born bad and the best we can hope is to keep them in line with fear of punishment.
- hezralig 4y agoAre you speaking from experience?
- LarryMullins 4y ago> kids who physically intimidate usually do so because they face violence or threat of it at home, so it's normalized. I don't know about "usually" but I know that it's sometimes the case, and that is main reason hesitant to say that teachers should be allowed to do this. They don't know what's going on at that kid's home. I do know that sometimes, kids are violent little shits just because they can be. When I attacked my brother with that bat it wasn't because I was being abused by an adult at home, it was simply because my brother insulted my inability to hit a ball. I reject the narrative that bullies are categorically victims of bullying themselves.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Hitting kids usually isn't acceptable or productive. But sometimes, rarely, it is appropriate. I disagree that these two sentenves can simultaneously be true; punishment that is not productive is, ipso facto, not appropriate.
- LarryMullins 4y ago> usually ... rarely There is no contradiction here.
- sfpotter 4y agoPlease read the other responses to your comment and consider the possibility that you are wrong. Hitting children is never OK regardless of the form it takes. Context makes no difference. There is always a better option. Hitting children is the recourse of the lazy and thoughtless. If you think you MUST physically discipline a child, it's because you haven't considered sufficiently many options and thought of something better. It is a failure of imagination on your part. DON'T DO IT.
- LarryMullins 4y agoI've heard all these arguments before many times, nobody here has said anything novel. I know I'm going against the grain saying this, I knew my comment would be unpopular before I wrote it. But it is nevertheless the way I feel.
- sammalloy 4y agoData and evidence is very often at odds with how we feel, which is why we tend to rely upon it more than feelings and give it more approximate weight and significance. It’s also why emotional arguments intended to persuade are so dangerous to those who are easily swayed by them.
- sfpotter 4y agoWell, I hope you don't have any kids!