• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Corporal Punishment

10,769
Posts
14
Years
Is spanking/paddling a suitable punishment for kids? Up to what age? Should parents be the only ones to dish it out, or it is okay for other authority figures to do it? Should the punisher have to be the same sex as the punishee?

These are some questions that I've seen brought up lately after a news article about a sophomore girl at a high school in Texas was spanked so hard by her male vice-principle that it apparently left her "bruised and blistered." Here's one article about the incident if you want to read it. Here is another one. Naturally, questions about what is suitable and what isn't have been raised. What is your take on this case and the issue of corporal punishment in general?
 
2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
I don't believe in using physical punishment for children. I believe spanking is no different from any other type of hitting.
 

Khawill

<3
1,567
Posts
11
Years
If my vice principal tried to hit me I'd break his arm (or stab him with whatever is in my pocket or on his desk at the time). If physical punishment is the only way to deal with me then you are doing something wrong. The reason I can't actually hurt him back is because I'd be killed by my dad, and maybe arrested for assault.
 
25,439
Posts
11
Years
There's a fine line between corporal punishment and abuse. Who is to say when it is justified to use violence as a punishment?

Beyond that ruling through fear by inflicting pain on those who aren't yet able to defend themselves is morally wrong on several levels. The first part using fear as a control method is wrong because it doesn't help create a healthy minded individual and because it goes against human rights. The second part is just bullying, it doesn't matter what "cause" it is for it is picking on those weaker than yourself to impose your will. This applies to both parents and authority figures.

IF it were acceptable I see little reason for gender to play a part, man or woman it doesn't matter to a child getting beaten, pain is pain.

When would it stop being acceptable or effective? That is the simplest for me to answer really. A method is no longer acceptable when it doesn't get results. So when the child is old enough to stand up for themselves and fight back it is no longer effective and, if you ask me, no longer appropriate. This is assuming you could even consider it as appropriate to harm a child anyway.
 
19
Posts
13
Years
For parents it's okay to spank your children (not teens) to discipline them, spanking lightly on the butt to teach a lesson is not the same as hitting them full force to even argue that is kidding yourself.

However hitting them is wrong and abuse, by hitting I mean punching and slapping in the face or really trying to hurt them.

For schools no it shouldn't be up to them for that, parents should discipline their own children.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
IF it were acceptable I see little reason for gender to play a part, man or woman it doesn't matter to a child getting beaten, pain is pain.
What about the fact that some people have kinks for certain things? (I think you know what I mean.) Wouldn't gender discrimination reduce the possibility of something bad happening with, say, a male authority figure and a female student, and would that not also reduce the chances of said authority figure of getting too overzealous with their disciplinary action if they weren't getting something extra out of it that they probably shouldn't?

For schools no it shouldn't be up to them for that, parents should discipline their own children.
What if a parent gave permission to a school? (Assuming the school is a place that practices corporal punishment.)
 

-ty-

Don't Ask, Just Tell
792
Posts
14
Years
  • Age 32
  • USA
  • Seen May 2, 2015
I won't get into which one I believe is "wrong" per se, but I want to go into why corporal punishment can be less effective than strict non-corporal punishment.

Here is an example to help guide the distinction between the two:

Corporal Punishment

Spoiler:


Now, let me give an explanation of strict non-corporal discipline:


Spoiler:
 
25,439
Posts
11
Years
What about the fact that some people have kinks for certain things? (I think you know what I mean.) Wouldn't gender discrimination reduce the possibility of something bad happening with, say, a male authority figure and a female student, and would that not also reduce the chances of said authority figure of getting too overzealous with their disciplinary action if they weren't getting something extra out of it that they probably shouldn't?

That statement would make sense if homosexuality wasn't a possibility and whilst I admit that that kind of behaviour is more common in straight men than any other group EVERYONE is capable of committing such acts.


I've also thought of some more reasons non-corporal punishment is more effective.

1. If I was hit, even as a young child, my logic would then be "well what else can they do? I've experienced this once and survived another time won't matter".
2. As bad/stupid as this probably sounds the child would eventually get used to the pain and just not care after the punishment had occurred enough times.
3. Simply put which punishment seems worse and more likely work over a long period of time? If you smack your child they'll be in pain and they won't do the wrong thing for a while sure. But pain like that is temporary, it doesn't last long. Whilst the removal of privileges can be extended as long as is necessary. How do you make corporal punishment that affective? Beat the kid every 20 minutes until they do the right thing? That's not punishment it's child abuse.

children (not teens)

Simply put that would be because it would be useless. Once your old enough if your parent tries to hit you it's probably going to be an instinctual reaction to defend yourself and that would jsut spiral out of control into a domestic dispute.
 
900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016
I've said this before on another forum, and I'll repeat it here. If it is illegal to hit another adult for doing something wrong, why then should it be legal to hit a child?
 
25,439
Posts
11
Years
I've said this before on another forum, and I'll repeat it here. If it is illegal to hit another adult for doing something wrong, why then should it be legal to hit a child?

After everything we have all said, after all the complicated arguments people have come up with, that simple statement is the single most intelligent and compelling argument any of us have come up with. So very true, in regards to violence children and adults should be treated no differently.
 

Nihilego

[color=#95b4d4]ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト[/color]
8,875
Posts
12
Years
I don't think that making your child fear you, which is more or less what you do when you hit them, is a very good way of making them listen to you. If you have to resort to violence to control your own child you need some serious help with your parenting skills. And as mentioned in this thread, there's always the chance that the child will simply become desensitised to it or learn that hitting is the way to get what you want; neither of which will have positive outcomes.

Regarding the whole 'authority figures' thing, the parent should be the greatest authority figure that the child has and if the parent wouldn't do it, the authority figure shouldn't do it. It is the parent's place, and only the parent's place, to use non-verbal methods of discipline should they choose to.

I've said this before on another forum, and I'll repeat it here. If it is illegal to hit another adult for doing something wrong, why then should it be legal to hit a child?

I agree with this tbh - especially since children aren't as able to defend themselves as adults are. Doesn't really make very much sense to me at all that the law basically states that it's alright to hit someone as long as they're young and defenceless.

...although, in fairness, with an adult 'hitting' would be more likely something like punching in the face rather than spanking, which is still illegal with children. I don't really think it should be illegal to spank, even though I don't think it's a good idea, since the degree of violence is far less than would be experienced in the adult world.

Scarf said:
Should the punisher have to be the same sex as the punishee?

I don't really see why it would matter.

Scarf said:
What if a parent gave permission to a school? (Assuming the school is a place that practices corporal punishment.)

Do such schools still actually exist? If so then... I guess that'd be alright. If both the parent and the school are ok with it and it's legal then there's nothing stopping it, I suppose.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
I've said this before on another forum, and I'll repeat it here. If it is illegal to hit another adult for doing something wrong, why then should it be legal to hit a child?
I agree, but for the sake of argument, how about this counter argument:

When adults don't follow the rules we don't hit them because we remind them of the rules, or fine them, or arrest them and put them in jail since we assume they're responsible enough to accept the consequences of their actions. Aren't children supposedly not always able to accept the consequences of their actions because of their maturity/developmental level? If reminding kids of the rules doesn't keep them from breaking them what can we do? It wouldn't be fair to punish them like adults because in some ways they aren't as responsible for themselves as adults, but we can't just let them do whatever they want.
 
900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016
I agree, but for the sake of argument, how about this counter argument:

When adults don't follow the rules we don't hit them because we remind them of the rules, or fine them, or arrest them and put them in jail since we assume they're responsible enough to accept the consequences of their actions. Aren't children supposedly not always able to accept the consequences of their actions because of their maturity/developmental level? If reminding kids of the rules doesn't keep them from breaking them what can we do? It wouldn't be fair to punish them like adults because in some ways they aren't as responsible for themselves as adults, but we can't just let them do whatever they want.

When a parent punishes a child for doing something wrong, that punishment generally includes a restriction on their freedoms. This alone for a child is a pretty good reason not to do whatever it is they did again. In the case of stealing, for example, a parent could take away a child's favourite toy for a time and then sit down with the child to drive home the message. Only after the parent is satisfied that the child has learned the lesson is the toy returned.

There are many ways to properly discipline a child and instill in them a sense of what is right and wrong without having to resort to violence. And yes, spanking is a form of violence. In my view, it is only the lazy parent who has to resort to hitting their child's behind to drive home a lesson.
 

-ty-

Don't Ask, Just Tell
792
Posts
14
Years
  • Age 32
  • USA
  • Seen May 2, 2015
When a parent punishes a child for doing something wrong, that punishment generally includes a restriction on their freedoms. This alone for a child is a pretty good reason not to do whatever it is they did again. In the case of stealing, for example, a parent could take away a child's favourite toy for a time and then sit down with the child to drive home the message. Only after the parent is satisfied that the child has learned the lesson is the toy returned.

There are many ways to properly discipline a child and instill in them a sense of what is right and wrong without having to resort to violence. And yes, spanking is a form of violence. In my view, it is only the lazy parent who has to resort to hitting their child's behind to drive home a lesson.

Well, I agree, for the most part, but that punishment doesn't give a clear enough message to the child that will deter him or her from repeating the activity.

The discipline must be more stringent. If a parent takes a single toy away for a very brief time as a punishment for theft, the magnitude of the action is not completely realized. I would treat the child more adult like, yes it will make them feel bad for a short while, but it is necessary in order to raise children with work-ethic, respect, and and appreciation for the many things that they have. I think a more appropriate form of discipline would be to take the toy away for a set time, like two week or a month in addition to extra chores. If you do something that you know is wrong, then you will face harsh consequences, rather than allowing the child to state their error, since the lesson is not completely learned. Therefore, it helps to solidify and follow-through with a punishment to convey the message that we cannot simply talk or apologize our ways out of facing a consequence in the life. Many parents will resort to physical punishment rather than following through with this type of discipline that requires consistent and firm parental oversight, since many parent try to use a non-physical method and fall short because they are erratic and lax with the rules that they have put in place.
 
900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016
Well, I agree, for the most part, but that punishment doesn't give a clear enough message to the child that will deter him or her from repeating the activity.

How do you know? It would depend on how the parents implement the punishment, wouldn't it?
 

-ty-

Don't Ask, Just Tell
792
Posts
14
Years
  • Age 32
  • USA
  • Seen May 2, 2015
How do you know? It would depend on how the parents implement the punishment, wouldn't it?

As I explained later on in my post, there needs to be clear preemptive time tables. If there is not, then the child may not apprehend the short-term absence of a toy or learn to obtain the toy back from the parent without facing consequence for bad behavior. I have worked with many children before. Once the toy or privilege is taken away, they will fuss, then eventually admit wrongdoing to get the object back, but that doesn't really teach the child that there are consequences for actions, and once those actions are taken, you must pay the penalty which is non-negotiable.

Not to sound like a drill-sergeant, but it is necessary to show children that pleading, after the fact, is not acceptable; when we do things that are "wrong" then we must assume responsibility and accept the punishment that we are liable for.

However, that is just one important side to discipline. The other is reward. When we fulfill the responsibilities of which are required and then some, the child should be given additional freedoms and/or objects. This is a necessary counterpoint to show children. We are not always given extra privileges, they are, for the most part, earned. This also helps to deter bad behavior and invoke enthusiasm in the type of discipline.

The kids that I have worked with had issues with this type of discipline, at first. Once they learned that they were able to receive additional privileges, they became productive, competitive, and well-behaved. But, you cannot begin/continue to grant privileges without consistent and clear-cut boundaries that define disciplinary penalties.
 
Last edited:
17,600
Posts
19
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 1, 2024
I don't think a light slap on the wrist or the butt or the mouth is bad. Anything more is something I don't approve of.

I also think that it should be something reserved strictly to the parents. If I was a parent and discovered my child's teacher did that to him/her, I would be FURIOUS that they laid a hand on him/her in such a manner.
 
Back
Top