What are you views on child discipline? Do you think corporal punishment is an acceptable practice?

1SG Larry Everly — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:37:55 -0400

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 15 at 2014 8:28 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:28:51 -0400

Robert Heinlein said it best. It's a long read, but I'm placing an excerpt from Starship Troopers that sums up my views on the subject (and a few others).

"I found myself mulling over a discussion in our class in History and Moral Philosophy. Mr. Dubois was talking about the disorders that preceded the breakup of the North American republic, back in the 20th century. According to him, there was a time just before they went down the drain when such crimes as murder were as common as dogfights. The Terror had not been just in North America -- Russia and the British Isles had it, too, as well as other places. But it reached its peak in North America shortly before things went to pieces.

"Law-abiding people," Dubois had told us, "hardly dared go into a public park at night. To do so was to risk attack by wolf packs of children, armed with chains, knives, home-made guns, bludgeons ... to be hurt at least, robbed most certainly, injured for life probably -- or even killed. This went on for years, right up to the war between the Russo-Anglo-American Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. Murder, drug addiction, larceny, assault, and vandalism were commonplace. Nor were parks the only places -- these things happened also on the streets in daylight, on school grounds, even inside school buildings. But parks were so notoriously unsafe that honest people stayed clear of them after dark."

I had tried to imagine such things happening in our schools, I simply couldn't. Nor in our parks. A park was a place for fun, not for getting hurt. As for getting killed in one --

"Mr. Dubois, didn't they have police? Or courts?"

"They had many more police than we have. And more courts. All overworked."

"I guess I don't get it." If a boy in our city had done anything half that bad ... well, he and his father would have been flogged side by side. But such things just didn't happen.

Mr. Dubois then demanded of me, "Define a 'juvenile delinquent.'"

"Uh, one of those kids -- the ones who used to beat up people."

"Wrong."

"Huh? But the book said -- "

"My apologies. Your textbook does so state. But calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit. 'Juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms, one which gives a clue to their problem and their failure to solve it. Have you ever raised a puppy?"

"Yes, sir."

"Did you housebreak him?"

"Err ... yes, sir. Eventually." It was my slowness in this that caused my mother to rule that dogs must stay out of the house.

"Ah, yes. When your puppy made mistakes, were you angry?"

"What? Why, he didn't know any better; he was just a puppy."

"What did you do?"

"Why, I scolded him and rubbed his nose in it and paddled him."

"Surely he could not understand your words?"

"No, but he could tell I was sore at him!"

"But you just said that you were not angry."

Mr. Dubois had an infuriating way of getting a person mixed up, "No, but I had to make him think I was. He had to learn, didn't he?"

"Conceded. But, having made it clear to him that you disapproved, how could you be so cruel as to spank him as well? You said the poor beastie didn't know that he was doing wrong. Yet you inflicted pain. Justify yourself! Or are you a sadist?"

I didn't then know what a sadist was -- but I know pups. "Mr. Dubois, you have to! You scold him so that he knows he's in trouble, you rub his nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so that he darn well won't do it again -- and you have to do it right away! It doesn't do a bit of good to punish him later; you'll just confuse him. Even so, he won't learn from one lesson, so you watch and catch him again and paddle him still harder. Pretty soon he learns. But it's a waste of breath just to scold him." Then I added, "I guess you've never raised pups."

"Many. I'm raising a dachshund now -- by your methods. Let's get back to those juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than you here in this class ...and they often started their lawless careers much younger. Let us never forget that puppy. These children were often caught; police arrested batches each day. Were they scolded? Yes, often scathingly. Were their noses rubbed in it? Rarely. Newspapers and officials usually kept their names secret -- in many places this was the law for criminals under eighteen. Were they spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent psychic damage."

(I had reflected that my father must never have heard of that theory.)

"Corporal punishment in schools was forbidden by law," he had gone on. "Flogging was lawful as sentence of court only in one small province, Delaware, and there only for a few crimes and was rarely invoked; it was regarded as 'cruel and unusual punishment.'" Dubois had mused aloud, "I do not understand objections to 'cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment -- and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism? However, that period was loaded with pre-scientific pseudo-psychological nonsense.

"As for 'unusual,' punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose." He then pointed his stump at another boy. "What would happen if a puppy were spanked every hour?"

"Uh ... probably drive him crazy!"

"Probably. It certainly will not teach him anything. How long has it been since the principal of this school last had to switch a pupil?"

"Uh, I'm not sure. About two years. The kid that swiped --"

"Never mind. Long enough. It means that such punishment is so unusual as to be significant, to deter, to instruct. Back to these young criminals -- They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sentence was: for a first offence, a warning -- a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested may times and convicted several times before he was punished -- and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation -- 'paroled' in the jargon of the times.

"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal -- and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder."

He had singled me out again. "Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house ... and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken -- whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. Comment, please?"

"Why ... that's the craziest way to raise a dog I ever heard of!"

"I agree. Or a child. Whose fault would it be?"

"Uh ... why, mine, I guess."

"Again I agree. But I'm not guessing."

"Mr. Dubois," a girl blurted out, "but why? Why didn't they spank little kids when they needed it and use a good dose of the strap on any older ones who deserved it -- the sort of lesson they wouldn't forget! I mean ones who did things really bad. Why not?"

"I don't know," he had answered grimly, "except that the time-tested method of instilling social virtue and respect for law in the minds of the young did not appeal to a pre-scientific pseudo-professional class who called themselves 'social workers' or sometimes 'child psychologists.' It was too simple for them, apparently, since anybody could do it, using only the patience and firmness needed in training a puppy. I have sometimes wondered if they cherished a vested interest in disorder -- but that is unlikely; adults almost always act from conscious 'highest motives' no matter what their behavior."

"But -- good heavens!" the girl answered. "I didn't like being spanked any more than any kid does, but when I needed it, my mama delivered. The only time I ever got a switching in school I got another one when I got home -- and that was years and years ago. I don't ever expect to be hauled up in front of a judge and sentenced to a flogging; you behave yourself and such things don't happen. I don't see anything wrong with our system; it's a lot better than not being able to walk outdoors for fear of your life -- why that's horrible!"

"I agree. Young lady, the tragic wrongness of what those well-meaning people did, contrasted with what they thought they were doing, goes very deep. They had no scientific theory of morals. They did have a theory of morals and they tried to live by it (I should not have sneered at their motives), but their theory was wrong -- half of it fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, half of it rationalized charlatanry. The more earnest they were, the farther it led them astray. You see, they assumed that Man had a moral instinct."

"Sir? I thought -- But he does! I have."

"No, my dear, you have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not -- and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind. These unfortunate juvenile criminals were born with none, even as you and I, and they had no chance to acquire any; their experiences did not permit it. What is 'moral sense'? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable, everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling everything we do.

"But the instinct to survive," he had gone on, "can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive. Young lady, what you miscalled your 'moral instinct' was the instilling in you by your elders of the truth that survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale. And so on up. A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the individual's instinct to survive -- and nowhere else! -- and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts.

"We have such a theory now; we can solve any moral problem, on any level. Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility toward the human race -- we are even developing an exact ethic for extra-human relations. But all moral problems can be illustrated by one misquotation: 'Greater love hath no man than a mother cat dying to defend her kittens.' Once you understand the problem facing that cat and how she solved it, you will then be ready to examine yourself and learn how high up the moral ladder you are capable of climbing.

"These juvenile criminals hit a low level. Born with only the instinct for survival, the highest morality they achieved was a shaky loyalty to a peer group, a street gang. But the do-gooders attempted to 'appeal to their better natures,' to 'reach them,' to 'spark their moral sense.' Tosh! They had no 'better natures'; experience taught them that what they were doing was the way to survive. The puppy never got his spanking; therefore what he did with pleasure and success must be 'moral.'

"The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand -- that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights.'

"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."

Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"

"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If the chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

"The third 'right' -- the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives -- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you that 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue -- indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent.' But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents -- people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail.

"And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture. The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights' ... and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure."

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 4:54 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:54:53 -0400

I have definitely swatted my kids on the butt a few times. But usually my tone of voice gets the message across. I do not allow the school to inflict corporal punishment. That is the task belonging solely to myself and their father.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 16 at 2014 7:13 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:13:08 -0400

When they hear their full first name followed by their middle name in a loud voice - my wife and I both do it - they know the deal!

I grew up with it but we've never used it on our kids and would NEVER allow anyone else to do it.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Sep 16 at 2014 7:37 AM

CPT Richard Riley — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:37:02 -0400

I was raised by my God-Parents. My father was 6'9" 375lbs, my mother 4'9" 94lbs. I saw my father get angry only a few times - once punching his fist through a solid wood door. I knew there was nothing in my body as stout as that solid wood door ... so the foreboding & anticipation that I might be the focus of that anger was more than enough to dissuade me from doing something I shouldn't.
I can count on one hand the number of times I was actually punished in that manner & those few times made a life long impression I would avoid at any cost. Age has given me the clarity to see that anticipation can be a very strong deterrent. Used properly without malice, it will certainly change your way of thinking.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 8:07 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:07:20 -0400

Different forms of discipline are required to effectively discipline all children. I am an advocate for corporal punishment when it is warranted. Family Law in Texas does allow for spanking (even in public if you can believe it) as long as it is done with an open hand and strikes the backside of the child between the small of the back and the top of the back of the legs. It is defined this way IMHO to allow for that one child that likes to jump around while being spanked and gets caught on the back of the leg a couple of times.

All that being said, I do believe that many parents have it in them to take corporal punishment too far. I have never given either of my kids more than 3 "pops" at a time. I feel that anything more than that moves it from punishment to just plain beating the kid.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Sep 16 at 2014 8:07 AM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:07:39 -0400

Age old question: Does violence beget more violence?
We are rational creatures with a sense to do that which promotes our survival first, our family second, our tribe, then our nation. Corporal punishment interacts with that survival instinct causing us to consider actions detrimental to the collective, detrimental to us.
In a sense it's like the monkey experiment with the banana and the fire hose. The caretakers would hose the chimpanzees down every time one of them attempted to grab the banana. Eventually they did not need to do it anymore since none of the chimpanzees would go after it. Then they would introduce a new chimpanzee and remove one of the old ones. When the new chimpanzee went after the banana, the rest of the group would beat him. Eventually all the original group had been removed, but the institutional memory, even though none of the current group had ever experienced the fire hose, would cause a violator to be beaten.
Is there a better way to teach humanism than corporal punishment? Probably, but there are people that need a bullet through the brain pan for the ideas of compassion and fair play to take root. Maybe Heinlein was right about a significant portion of our population.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Sep 16 at 2014 11:12 AM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:12:54 -0400

I spank my kids. I usually do the whole 2-3 swats depending on what happened. My kids are young so the shock that daddy just gave them a swat startles and scares them more than anything. Now when they get older it will probably be different.

Response by SPC Richard White made Sep 16 at 2014 11:41 AM

SPC Richard White — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:41:14 -0400

Schools should not be allowed to do corporal punishment.I think parents should be allowed to but things have gotten so bad that child protective services says you can't touch your children or its abuse.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 11:49 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:49:08 -0400

Spare the rod, spoil the child. I agree with some of the other answers: I believe corporal punishment has a place in the discipline of children, but it should be used judiciously, only when warranted, and not be abusive.

I grew up getting spankings when I did something wrong, and, looking back, I think that was fine. (I may not have thought it was so "fine" when I was getting it!)

One problem we have these days is that our PC society and government/laws want to punish parents for disciplining their children. I submit we're headed in the wrong direction on this. I'm not condoning really hurting a child, but a couple taps, as Cpl Matthew Wall said, should be well within a parent's "rights."

Response by SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham made Sep 16 at 2014 12:14 PM

SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:14:49 -0400

Acceptable, yes! Required, no. Each person (child) is different and if they are tempered with beatings/pops/swats/whatever they may straighten up or rebel. It's the mind that decides what the body does. Causing pain doesn't stop it, just teaches a consequence. My guess is after the first few times a child is smacked (on the diaper or training pants) most will try to avoid such an affront from their parent/caregiver. I know the threat to me was scarier than my dad actually pulling out the white duty belt for the whuppin' I had earned. However, we all know some folks (kids and grown) that only respond to the delivery of said promise and that's part of our spectrum... Treat each child as they need to learn... some need the rod until they learn what is "right".

Response by SFC Boots Attaway made Sep 16 at 2014 12:26 PM

SFC Boots Attaway — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:26:53 -0400

I say spanking is not only the right thing to do but it is needed when warranted. On the other hand closed fist , beating and bruising is NOT acceptable under any circumstance. There is a big difference between punishing and abusing a child. Do NOT let me catching you beating or abusing any child or woman.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Sep 16 at 2014 12:40 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:40:40 -0400

I have signed the documents for the school to use it on the kids. It seriously re-caged my thought on the consequences of poor decision making as a young man and now it is usually financial or some other means. I am struggling due to the lack of it with my own kids, they are respectful to everyone else, but not mom and dad or their grandparents. There is only so much taking away the Xbox, Cell phone and computer can do. I have tried financial (taking back allowance) education also. Nothing seems to work except three swats to the buttocks for the son. If you only once do not back up what you say you are going to do for punishment, then you are forever going to pay for it.

Acceptable practice - YES

Societal and politically correct now - NO, as a parent who cares you will find yourself in jail.

Story, my son came home from school, he said, "Dad, you touch me, spank me or do anything to me, I'm calling the police and having you arrested, cause my teacher said so" After I said come here, I am gonna whip your tail, I spent the next half hour trying to catch him. He never called the police. True story from on base at Fort Hood.

Having been a MP, we were briefed (ordered) to patrol the commissary to watch for mothers abusing their children in the aisles of the store. My idea of abuse is much different from the directives I was given. It is hard to enforce something as a spanking on the butt as abuse when it is the mechanism I use for discipline, however it is instantaneously guilty until proven innocent when someone reports you for such actions.

Just my .02!

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 16 at 2014 12:46 PM

SGT Richard H. — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:46:09 -0400

I think that regular spankings and other punishments, such as my Dad making me do hard physical work are the reason I grew up OK.

Response by SPC David S. made Sep 16 at 2014 2:09 PM

SPC David S. — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:09:46 -0400

For myself I have been cracked a few times which I would say acelarated my learning of respect. However I could never hit my daughter, although she has seen me dish out an ass beating from time to time in watching me play rugby. She never talks back to me or disrepects me or gets into any trouble for that matter. I feel you can deliver the same message using other means, but nothing cuts to the quick like a willow switch.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 2:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:30:55 -0400

I slapped my son's hand one time when he was two for touching something I told him not too. The look in his eyes that said, "I trusted you. Why would you hurt me?" broke my heart. I have not laid a finger on any of my children since. I use time outs and losing privileges/items/screens (tv, games etc) as punishment. My son is now 15 and an honor student. My daughters are well behaved and do what they are asked to do. I would rather raise my kids with love than with fear.

Response by LT Jessica Kellogg made Sep 17 at 2014 1:05 PM

LT Jessica Kellogg — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:05:21 -0400

Personally I was never spanked/struck growing up, and I turned out fine (if I do say so myself...)

So that would lead me to the belief that there are effective alternatives.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Sep 17 at 2014 1:18 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:18:36 -0400

Corporal punishment has it's place in the toolbox of discipline. Remember, some methods of punishment and discipline may not work due to the developmental age of the child. You can reason and explain why what he did was bad with a 9 year old. You can't with a 3 year old. But that 3 year old understand a swat on the butt.

Now what kind of corporal punishment is okay? IMHO there is nothing wrong with inflicting momentary pain (again kids understand cause/effect and pain) but when it start moving into physical injury, then it is a little too far. I was spanked as a child, but I can count on one hand the times dad brought out the belt. And even then it was only 1 or 2 hits. And guess what, I never did what I did again...