Corporal punishment is a controversial topic. Some people support it, but others oppose it fiercely. The type of discipline that parents should give to children differs from one culture to another. In some cultures, corporal punishment is permissible, and in others, it is a crime.
Moreover, some religious people believe that corporal punishment is important so as not to spare the rod and spoil the child, according to the Bible. I do not support corporal punishment because I do not believe that inflicting pain to a child can make them disciplined. Instead, it will make them fearful. Corporal punishment is a negative type of discipline because it teaches children that violence is the way to influence people.
To begin with, people that support corporal punishment say they do so because they believe that a child needs spanking to learn a discipline. For instance, some teachers complain that students do not behave well in school because they lack disciplined at home (Banks, “Letters” 2). They argue that children that do not receive corporal punishment turn out to be spoilt arrogant children with no regard for any kind of rule or regulation.
Such children even threaten their parents with calling the police if spanked (Banks, “Spanking” 3). Moreover, some parents spank their children because their culture permits it, for example in Korea an act of spanking a child is equal to love, but in the USA, it is a felony (Sewell, Willon and Kim 4).
Therefore, people who support corporal punishment do so because they believe it helps a child to grow up with discipline and respect for the adults, such as teachers. They truly believe that sparing the rod is spoiling a child.
On the other hand, most parents do not support corporal punishment because they think it is not a proper way to discipline a child. They believe that a parent should look for an alternative way to instill discipline in each child because children are different.
There is no one particular method of parenting that can fit all children (Banks, “Spanking” 3). Furthermore, studies have shown that children who experience corporal punishment may end up with problems later in life such as drug abuse and even personality disorders (Banks, “Letters” 2).
Furthermore, corporal punishment should not be used on children because other ways of disciplining children work effectively. Some parents claim they have never spanked their children and they turned out to be all right. They argue that parents need to spend more time taking care of their children, especially during their formative years to instill discipline and the children will not turn away from them when they become adults.
Parents, especially those in Sweden, get time to spend with their children during their early years. They get paid leaves and get the chance to mold them properly. Thus, those who advocate against corporal punishment posit that parents must value their children and devote time to them.
Finally, the debate on the issue of corporal punishment will not conclude soon. Some parents feel that they have a right to spank their children. They argue their parents spanked them and they turned out to be okay. Some believe that corporal punishment should be outlawed because it harms children. Therefore, no parent should subject a child to any form of violence in the name of discipline.
Works Cited
Banks, Sandy. “Letters: Spanking and parenting” Los Angeles Times. 2012. Web.
This article is a quantitatively researched paper, which examines concepts of corporal punishment and the main underlying factors that have primarily contributed to the acceptance of the vice among societies. The research has been conducted by a well-known author in Sociology (Emily Douglas), from a well-known academic institution namely Bridgewater State College. Other researches on sociological issues by the author include the examination of divorce education programs for parents in Maine and New Hampshire, public opinion in Maine about child abuse and corporal punishment, the relationship between violence socialization, and attitudes about corporal punishment (Research, 2009, p.1).
Content of the Article
The paper analyses very critical issues of corporal punishment from a cultural perspective using data collected from college students from varied cultures. It measures culturally based experiences on the articulation of corporal punishment, and the main determining factors that cause the approval of the vice.
The paper examines concepts of socialization both within and outside the family and their influence on people’s attitudes on corporal punishment. In addition, the article examines the impacts of corporal punishment on later developments in adult life (Douglas, 2006, pp. 23-30). To understand corporal punishment, the research considers previous findings on corporal punishment, although it lacks enough supporting literature on the issue. The author of the article uses information collected from international dating violence members on perceptions of corporal punishment. The article uses different methods to analyze data collected namely, SPSS and multi-level modeling.
About Title of Article
Concepts of corporal punishment are many and choosing the right topic for research on the issue is very important. Not only does corporal punishment affect students, but the entire society. People, human rights bodies, and other governmental bodies dealing with sociological issues once have discussed the issue hence the importance of selecting that reflects the practice in the entire society. The article topic clearly illustrates the concept under study, and further, it defines its major concern. It reflects the independent and dependent variables, whereby the former is culture’s impacts on socialization and the latter is a variation of corporal punishment. In addition, the title defines the content of the article as a comparison of corporal punishment approval during childhood and adulthood. Generally, the title was chosen by the author of this article demonstrates the main concern of the research, hence logical connectedness.
Problem Statement
As Chris argues, research problem statements should give the overall view of research. It should clearly define the vision of research, mechanisms of achieving desired outcomes, and factors of considerations during research. The problem statement should define groups affected by issues under study, boundaries of a problem (impacts before and after implementing corrective measures), and time of occurrence of issues under consideration. In addition, it should give the reader an insight of importance of implementing corrective measures (Chris, 2009, Para. 1-5). This article’s problem statement discusses the scope of the concept, defines boundaries and illustrates importance of addressing the issue. The statement gives an insight of the issue, but it lacks proper links to past literature and findings on corporal punishment. In addition, the articles approach illustrates the nature of research approach: quantitative, which the research applies to study the issue.
Literature Review
Literature reviews should give writers direction using previous research findings on the topic under study. Writers should critically review previous research findings on issues under study, to determine deficits in previous studies. Although this article refers to previous findings on corporal punishment it lacks a firm basis of defining some concept related to corporal punishment. Further, although it examines changing trends of corporal punishment, it fails to account for exact impacts of corporal punishment in both adulthood and childhood. In addition, the literature review fails to define clearly the approach taken by the author on corporal punishment. For example, although readers may have an insight that the author wanted to discuss cultural perceptions of corporal punishment, it is hard to determine this from the literature review. As Creswell (1994, pp. 45-49) argues, review should clearly illustrate areas of controversy, provide vivid summaries of findings of related researches, and provide deficits, which writers should base their research. In addition, this paper fails to provide biases and other valid findings on corporal punishment as research dictates.
The article applies correctly APA standards although currently innovations have occurred in the usage of the style due to addition of page to in-text citations.
Purpose, Hypotheses, and Research Questions
The writer states the purpose of the study, which might seems to result from lack of enough research literature that supports approval of corporal punishment. The writer did correct hypothesis about corporal punishment and on importance of intervention measures. In addition, the writer goes ahead and stated areas of importance for the research, hence showing purpose of the research. On the other hand, the writer provides a link among factors that shape perceptions of corporal punishment through providing a link between culture and influences of family relationships (Douglas, 2006, p.24). This forms a firm basis for understanding and interpretation of research findings, in that it vividly defines the problem under question.
Data Collection
The research uses questionnaires to collect required data, whereby the research carefully selected carefully consortium members who were to participate. Methods that the research used gave respondents flexibility of adding questions, which they though were important; hence, this facilitated collection of all necessary information for the research. The researcher explains methods used to select respondents (convenience sampling), which helps to eliminate biases that may affect the research quality and validity. To avoid data deficits that might have resulted from biased responses, the researcher explains reasons for the research and main control factors. This is a major requirement for any research because data collected from research is the main basis for validating conclusions and recommendations.
On the other hand, for correct measurement of variables, the author used violence socialization and approval strategies that ensured demographic differentiations received attention. For example, the writer used demographic variables, individual association profiles, and social desirability measurements to analyze various respondents’ characteristics (Douglas, 2006, p.26). This is an important part of any quantitative because it helps to analyze respondents’ answers on a broad scale.
Although the researchers made sure data collected was valid, some deficits are clear because majority of those interviewed are social science students and women. Data on issues of corporal punishment must take consider the overall society and not a class of respondents, hence likelihood of biased results.
Data Analysis and Results
Organization of research data illustrate authors desired goals. Tabular representations of collected data, and methods applied to analyze data provides a clear basis of the research problem. Research results considering various demographic characteristics among respondents helps to give additional information of perceptions of corporal punishment, hence validating research results. The research presents correlations among these factors correctly; hence, readers can easily understand general trends of corporal punishment.
On the other hand, although generalizations of the author emanate from data collected, at some point the author previous research readings influence the stand taken. Comparisons made are okay, but the research does not bring new concepts into the field, which is a requirement for research. The research only concretes previous findings on the topics, but does not excite any curiosity to the reader.
General Writing
In conclusion, this research fits the academia because, majority of human rights campaigners do not read the American journal of Orthopsychiatry. In addition, although the data analysis methods used (SPSS and multilevel modeling) are good for quantitative analysis, they do not give conclusive results. This is because researchers cannot analyze some behavioral factors quantitatively, hence the need for facial feedback analysis. In addition, the researcher uses correct terms and language to express ideas, which makes the article more presentable and readable.
Reference
Chris. (2009). How to write a problem statement. CEPTARA. Web.
Creswell. W. (1994). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. London: Sage publications.
Douglas, M. (2006). Familial violence socialization in childhood and later life approval of corporal punishment: a cross-cultural perspective. American journal of orthopsychiatry, 76(1), 23-30.
Research: current and former research projects. 2009. Web.
The question of just and effective punishment continues to occupy legal minds and thoughtful citizens. On both sides, one submits, debate rests on the essential humaneness and concern for civil rights that impels American society. At the same time, much of what we have resolved for ourselves about corporal punishment in the judicial arena conflicts with what is practiced in home and school settings. The same sense of fair play goads us when facing outward to wonder whether the examples of enlightened penology in northern Europe are worth emulating, sweep the terrorist inmates at Guantanamo under the rug by thrusting them on other nations, and fuels a quiet rage that other cultures can be so wantonly backward inflicting corporal punishment on offenders and protesters alike.
Historical and Cultural Contexts
An Age-Old Practice
Corporal and capital punishment are inextricably linked because in the entire recorded history of mankind, being forced to drink poison (Socrates being the most famous example) and whipping were the least painful punishments imposed on criminals. Most forms of capital punishment were deliberately cruel, inflicted a long drawn-out death, lent themselves to public spectacles so as to deter others, and generally defined justice in terms of retribution by the affected community. Examples of these include breaking the criminal on the wheel, boiling to death (a particularly drawn-out execution, favored by Chinese and Japanese), flaying, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, slow death by the “thousand cuts” (Chinese), crushing, stoning, burning at the stake (e.g. Joan of Arc or the numerous suspected heretics, many being forced Muslim converts, during the time of the Inquisition), dismemberment, sawing, live burial, decapitation, scaphism (the Persian practice of binding offenders to a trough, covering his head and exposed limbs with honey and letting exposure to the sun and numerous insect bites cause a gradual death), or necklacing (Time, 1983).
Nor are these gruesome practices always judicial and ancient. Necklacing was invented in an era of vigilantism and inter-tribal violence in South Africa that lasted from 1985 to the early 1990s. The practice consisted of throwing a rubber tire around the victims head, dousing it with gasoline and setting it on fire. Death by inhalation of noxious rubber fumes was likely near-instantaneous and merciful.
Such is the recency of cruel and unusual capital punishment that, as late as 1878, the Supreme Court was forced to abjure capital punishment employing drawing and quartering, dissection/disemboweling, or burning at the stake (Wilkerson v. Utah, 1878). It was not the Salem witch trials of 1692-93 that remained fresh in the minds of justices then (the nineteen convicted were executed by hanging) but the long period from 1484 to the 1830s when the Catholic Church sentenced devil-worshippers and, by definition, witches to burning at the stake. Late in the period, English, Swiss, French and German Protestants continued the tradition but resorted to hanging.
“Barbaric” practices are not the preserve of backward peoples, either. Time magazine tells of a 19th century French tourist who witnessed a criminal in India dragged around a city by an elephant and executed by having the elephant stamp on a rock placed on the hapless victim’s head (2003). In 17th century Massachusetts, a suspect died while being tortured by rock crushing.
In the Middle Ages, impalement was reportedly popular in Asia and Europe. Being impaled with a long stake – the entry point varying from mouth to rectum or the sides of the torso – and then raised for all to see was ostensibly a form of torture but it was invariably fatal, as was crucifixion during the Roman era.
The “breaking wheel” was merely a convenient rack to which the convict for public execution was tied. The executioner then broke every bone he could each with an iron hammer. Death resulted from dehydration and shock (Classic Encyclopedia, 2006).
Historical Origins
Wilson (1999) found that instances of educational and judicial corporal punishment may be found in the earliest annals of human civilization, in Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia and Egypt. For example, the first known codified laws, the Hammurabi code (circa 1780 BC), is best known for its straightforward injunction, “an eye for an eye”. But it was also the first instance where penalties of death were explicitly imposed for such offenses as perjury, theft of royal property, draft evasion, criminal negligence of irrigation dikes, breaking and entering or stealing slaves (Hooker, 1999).
In Rome and Sparta, corporal punishment had a heavily martial slant. The Spartans used what McCole terms cruel punishment to instill discipline, willpower and physical training in citizen-sons who would be warriors on growing up. The Roman Empire gives us our first recorded example of judicial corporal punishment, 40 lashes with a whip applied to the back and shoulders or with the “fasces” (a bundle of 8-10 willow rods used to carry the mace as symbol of authority into battle) inflicted on the buttocks being the maximum penalty under Roman law. These punishments were also the first recorded instances of legal sanctions being carried out in public to serve as a deterrent could draw blood, and were frequently inflicted in public (McCole, 1999).
In the Middle Ages, the fact that the Catholic Church encouraged self-flagellation as penance and expiation for sins (e.g. the practices espoused by St. Francis of Assisi) first led to the adoption of corporal punishment in schools, a practice that continues to this day in diverse countries around the world.
From the 16th century onward, such attitudes caused a regression to public whippings as judicial corporal punishment and public spectacle “’pour encourager les autres” (from Voltaire’s ‘Candide’, meaning to serve as an example to others). By the 18th century, however, Bentham (1983) reports that reform-minded legal luminaries and philosophers began to question whether merely inflicting pain on criminals was efficient in deterring recidivism in the long run. Thus did the idea of reform rather than retribution begin to take hold.
As the Age of Enlightenment flourished in Europe and North America in the 19th century, attitudes about judicial corporal punishment began to mellow. This was helped along by widely-publicized scandals of inadvertent deaths caused by military flogging and educational corporal punishment (Middleton, 2005). Late in the century, courts in the United States and the UK also overturned the long-cherished principle that husbands had the right to visit domestic violence on “errant” wives (Calvert, 1974; R. v. Jackson, 1891).
Judicial Corporal Punishment
The Eighth Amendment and Present-Day Domestic Practices
Protection from judicial abuse and arbitrary application of “cruel and unusual punishments” is enshrined in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights and dates back just fourteen years after the Declaration of Independence. Proscribing excessive bail, fines and “cruel and unusual punishment,” the amendment is nearly identical to the corresponding clauses in the Bill of Rights that the English Parliament promulgated in 1689. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed along with other Reconstruction Amendments after the Civil War, carried a due process clause that made the Eighth operative no matter what state law held.
Having already included the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the “Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776,” state delegate Patrick Henry argued for a similar supplement to the Constitution and thereby revealed the enduring rationale for proscribing cruel and unusual punishment: “What has distinguished our ancestors [presumably both the early American settlers and the British]?–That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment…” (Schwartz, 1992, p. 170; Elliot, 1888).
Not till the early 1970s, however, did the Court lay down guiding principles for judging corporal punishment “cruel or unusual”: a) “degrading to human dignity; b) wholly arbitrary in application; c) universally rejected by society; and, d) clearly and obviously unnecessary (Furman v. Georgia, 1972).
An obvious example of what is socially unacceptable is execution by drawing and quartering, dissection/disemboweling, or burning an offender alive. In contemporary times, the Supreme Court also exempted, as violative of the Eight Amendment, execution of either the mentally handicapped or minors (Wilkerson v. Utah, 1878; Atkins v. Virginia, 2002; Roper v. Simmons, 2005). An important distinction in all three rulings is that they held regardless of the crime committed.
On the other hand, the Court ruled that the following did not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”: execution by musketry, lifetime imprisonment for minor theft, a life term with no possibility of parole for possessing a mere 675 grams of cocaine, and a life sentence with parole a possibility for a $150 shoplifting offense because of the aggravating circumstance of a third offense.
The “Evolving Standards” Test versus Established Precedent
Recall that the British precedent used by the Eighth Amendment of 1791 specifically referred to established practice, “…as their ancestors in like case have usually done…that…cruel and unusual punishments (not be) inflicted.” (Parliament, 1689). This has caused some scholarly debate about whether “contrary to long usage” should prevail over “evolving standards of decency” in deciding whether corporal and capital punishment violate the Eighth Amendment. Deciding in favor of the latter, the Warren Court ruled against inherently-cruel punishment or penalties grossly and “cruelly disproportionate” to the offense (Trop v. Dulles, 1958). Very recently, for example, the Court held that Louisiana could not impose the death penalty in a case of child rape (Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008).
On the other hand, Stinneford (2008) urges a return to the original thinking behind the Eighth Amendment, that long-standing practice is a more beneficial guide than evolving standards which are subject to fluctuating mores. This should effectively protect, he argues, against the tendency of government to invent new punishments that are more cruel. An example he cites is the fact that seven states already impose chemical castration on sex offenders and others seriously plan to introduce surgical castration, which England had already cast away as early as the 13th century.
The International Scene: Disparate Traditions
In the modern, hopefully more enlightened era, judicial corporal punishment abroad differs primarily because of the effects of British colonization and the incredible throwbacks to medieval capital and corporal punishment that Muslim courts practice in countries that permit it.
Given that corporal punishment in UK schools was outlawed only within this decade and judicial corporal punishment sentences went on the decline only in the first half of the 20th century, it stands to reason that many former British colonies that gained independence only after World War II retain caning as part of penology still skewed toward retribution. Examples are Botswana, Malaysia, Singapore and Tanzania. In Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore, such corporal punishment is meted only on male convicts but jointly with prison terms. Prisoners are stripped naked and rattan rods soaked in brine used to flay the buttocks. Being a family-run quasi-democracy, Singapore laws are more draconian than libertarian, as evidenced by capital punishment (hanging) being imposed for possession of any quantity of marijuana or psychotropic drugs and the public caning of an American teenager in 1994 merely for vandalism.
Many nations with Muslim majorities – among them Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, northern Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, Libya, Yemen and areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq where Taliban insurgents can temporarily hold sway – think it is perfectly alright to keep their people ruled by Koran-quoting mullahs and their judicial systems solely comprised of Sharia religious courts. Flogging, whipping or caning persists as judicial corporal punishment, augmented by amputation of thieves’ fingers and beheadings in Saudi Arabia. In the latter, public beheading is the penalty for murder, rape, drug trafficking, sodomy, armed robbery, apostasy (converting, say, to Catholicism) and other offenses. Men and women are equally liable for beheading sentences. The execution is always public. Eye gouging as penalty for participating in a public brawl is also an extant penalty in the Kingdom, imposed as recently as 2005 (Human Rights Watch, 2005).
In Iran, courts feel free to impose particularly barbaric chemical blinding and public stonings for both men and women, with severe whipping beforehand part of the punishment. The sexism rampant in Muslim societies surfaces even here. Men are buried up to their waists, which presumably allows them to cower and let muscle-bound backs take most of the thrown stones. If they somehow survive or manage to run away, no further judicial sanctions are applied. Women, on the other hand, can be sentenced to stoning for adultery and must be buried up to their necks. Females who survive that ordeal must serve a prison sentence as well (Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2005).
These are the same nations that repress women’s rights, practice female circumcision and fund terrorist action in “infidel” nations.
There is no lack of universal treaties and declarations to which the U.S. and these theocratic nations are parties. For one, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the UN General Assembly in 1948 exhorts, “No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’). The same right (“No one shall be subjected to…inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”) is invoked in Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, as it is in section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982, in Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 2000 and again in Article 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. However, American diplomacy has apparently opted to prioritize democratic elections and freedom of speech ahead of concerns about abuse of judicial corporal punishment. Neither is the U.N. capable of ending cruel and capricious judicial sanctions abroad since it has no sanctions it can bring to bear on its own and voting is dominated by the Afro-Asian bloc to which the aforementioned Muslim nations belong.
References
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (USSC 2002).
Bentham, J. (1983). Chrestomathia (Martin J. Smith and Wyndham H. Burston, eds.), Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, pp. 34, 106.
Calvert, R. (1974). Criminal and civil liability in husband-wife assaults. In Violence in the family (Suzanne K. Steinmetz and Murray A. Straus, eds.). New York: Harper & Row.
Classic Encyclopedia (2006). Breaking on the wheel. 11th ed. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Elliot, J., ed. (1888). The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the federal constitution as recommended by the general convention at Philadelphia in 1787. 2d ed. New York: Burt Franklin.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (USSC 1972).
Hooker, R., ed. (1999). World Civilizations: The code of Hammurabi.
Middleton, J. (2005). Thomas Hopley and mid-Victorian attitudes to corporal punishment. History of Education.
Parliament (1689). Bill of Rights.
R. v. Jackson 1 QB 671 (1891).
Robinson, B.A. (2006). The burning times: The time line – the Dark Ages to now. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (USSC 2005).
Schwartz, B. (1992). The great rights of mankind: A history of the American Bill of Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Select Committee on Foreign Affairs (2005). Campaign against the arms trade, evidence to the House of Commons, London.
Stinneford, J. (2008). The original meaning of “unusual”: The Eighth Amendment as a bar to cruel innovation. Northwestern University Law Review, 102, (4).
Time.com (1983). The death penalty: Revenge is the mother of invention.
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (USSC 1958).
Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (USSC 1878).
Wilson, R. M. (1999). A study of attitudes towards corporal punishment as an educational procedure from the earliest times to the present. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Radboud Nijmegen University, 2.3 to 2.6.
The usage of corporal punishment as the way of providing discipline and controlling the children’s behavior is one of the most controversial questions which are widely discussed by psychologists, sociologists, and philosophers today. These debates involve arguing on the main moral and psychological aspects of the issue because it is the problem of not only a family, but of the whole society.
Corporal punishment can be considered as the most abusive method to control the children’s behavior which can be used by parents at home and by teachers at school because the consequences of corporal punishment are always negative for children without references to the intensity and frequency of such punishment.
Corporal punishment as a kind of physical punishment cannot be discussed as the effective method to provide the discipline, but only as the violation of the children’s rights which can lead to the unpredictable consequences in the future.
Children can experience the challenge of corporal punishment at school and at home. If the public’s position according to the usage of corporal punishment at school is rather clear and can be stated as quite negative, the reaction to the issues of corporal punishment at home can be different.
It is significant to pay attention to the fact that many parents do not consider their actions as abusive and that is why they are not aware of the existence of the problem in their families. Elizabeth Gershoff is an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Michigan, and she is studying the problem of the usage of corporal punishment in families during several years.
According to her latest findings, the problem of physical punishment is still current for US families, in spite of the development of discussing this question in society. Dr. Gershoff states that the American parents use the “physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience bodily pain or discomfort so as to correct or punish the child’s behavior” (Gershoff, 2008, p. 9).
Nevertheless, corporal punishment rarely leads to the expected results and can correct the children’s behavior. Instead of it, children are inclined to react aggressively or express the signs of the oppressed moods to address the attempts of their humiliating.
Thus, the negative consequences of the usage of corporal punishment as the method of controlling and correcting the children’s behavior can be divided into short-term and long-term ones. The short-term results are, for instance, the facts of children being aggrieved with the punishment.
Moreover, children’s behavior can be unimproved, and they can provoke the parents’ further negative reaction to their actions. In his research on the aspects of the conflict theory of corporal punishment, Randall Collins accentuates that parents use corporal punishment for receiving the immediate results, but the real results can be unexpected, and moreover, such a punishment cannot be morally justified (Collins, 2005).
The long-term consequences of corporal punishment are influential for the development of children as personalities. Violent actions with which it is possible associate corporal punishment often provoke the violence in response or help to form the opinion that it is possible to use violence in social interactions as the way to achieve the definite personal goals.
After the years of investigating, Joan McCord discusses such negative unintended consequences of corporal punishment as the formation of the aggressive antisocial behavior (McCord, 2005). Using corporal punishment, parents allow children using of violent physical actions in their everyday life which often leads to the occurrences of the facts of antisocial behavior at school and in society.
Moreover, possible mental health problems in the future also can be considered as the long-term consequences of corporal punishment. When parents decide to punish their children physically they do not understand all the negative effects of their actions.
Murray Straus in his studies of the development of corporal punishment in the USA states that many parents do not see the possible effects of their immediate actions when they choose corporal punishment instead of simple explanations and warm conversations with their children. Focusing on corporal punishment, parents create the atmosphere of mistrust in their family.
According to Straus, those children who suffer from the facts of corporal punishment at home also have many psychological problems which can develop in the mental health problems (Straus, 2001).
The researchers agree that physically punished children often suffer from depressions and fears of being punished which can result in their low self-esteem and the feeling of the lack of personal safety. They also can choose anxiety and rigidity as the ways to react the problems and life challenges (McCord, 2005; Straus, 2001).
The issue of corporal punishment in families requires its further discussion by the researchers in order to provide the effective system of the alternate ways to control and correct the children’s behavior. Parents should not consider corporal punishment as the most quick and effective way to control the child because this method not only ineffective but also risky because of a number of its negative effects. Moreover, the usage of corporal punishment breaks the human rights, moral and ethic norms.
References
Collins, R. (2005). Conflict theory of corporal punishment. In M. Donnelly & M. Straus (Eds.), Corporal punishment of children in theoretical perspective (pp. 199-214). USA: Yale University Press.
Gershoff, E. T. (2008). Report on physical punishment in the United States: What research tells us about its effects on children. Columbus OH: Center for Effective Discipline.
McCord, J. (2005). Unintended consequences of punishment. In M. Donnelly & M. Straus (Eds.), Corporal punishment of children in theoretical perspective (pp. 165-170). USA: Yale University Press.
Straus, M. A. (2001). Beating the devil out of them: Physical punishment in American families. Piscataway NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Corporal or violent punishment, as the word implies, is imposing a punishment once a child or a person committed a serious mistakes. In the classroom setting and home setting, violent punishments are usually in the form of spanking the child on his/her buttocks and some are spanking the hands. Normally the teachers’ or parents’ bare hands or sometimes a small stick is being used to facilitate the said form of punishment – the action form of violent punishment. Meanwhile, it is usually in the homes where the verbal form of punishment takes place. Bad words and shouting at the child are the most common forms of punishments by most mothers who find it hard to control their emotions. Whatever the form of corporal punishment is imposed, I am firmed with the idea that corporal punishment should not be given to a child, specially in schools, because it will not only harm the child physically, but also emotionally and psychologically. Children will be affected emotionally in the form of losing confidence and having the inability to socialize. Their psychological state will also be affected in the form of having doubts about themselves and will always fear being hit or punished if ever they do something.
First Argument
The schools should not allow corporal punishment as it will affect the child’s mental health in a way that it prevents the child’s ability to develop emotionally. Such forms of punishments are aimed at not merely punishing the child because he/she has committed a mistake but also to instill to the child’s mind that what he/she has done is wrong and that it should not be done again (Newton, 2001).
Without the corporal punishment, the students do not learn the real value of discipline and they do not maintain proper conduct. The students who did not receive any corporal punishment when they were still on their younger years tend to have deviant behaviors as they grow older.
Second Argument
Meanwhile, there are also studies which have proven that corporal punishment offers nothing but negative effects to both the psychological and emotional aspects of a child thereby putting negative effects on the continuing education. Some of the proven negative impacts of corporal punishment are:
The corporal punishment in the form of physical punishment enhances various deviant behavior of the student like “lying, stealing, cheating, bullying, assaulting a sibling or peers, and lack of remorse for wrongdoing”. This is particularly evident when corporal or violent punishment is done in a regular basis (Lombardo and Polonko, 2000).
Corporal punishment increases the risk of child abuse (Lombardo and Polonko, 2000).
Teachers and parents impose violent or corporal punishment are not serving a good example for the children, instead they are serving as the models for “aggressive behavior and for inappropriate ways of dealing with conflict” (Lombardo and Polonko, 2000).
Corporal punishments are ways of “eroding trust” between a child and a teacher or parent (Lombardo and Polonko, 2000).
It is believed that corporal or violent punishment affects the cognitive development of the children (Lombardo and Polonko, 2000).
It is believed that children who have regularly received corporal punishment from the educators will grow as an adult who suffer “from depression and other negative social and mental health outcomes” (Lombardo and Polonko, 2000).
Third Argument
Corporal punishment should never be allowed in schools because it will affect the children-student’s physical health. Imagine a child being hit, smacked or spank by teachers just because they did something naughty at school. We are talking here of a small child, fragile, with sensitive skins, with not-so-fully developed and delicate bones and muscles. A hit by a stick or even by bare hands will surely result to bruises o scratches to the child’s body. It would certainly affect their growth and bodily movements. In fact, there are studies which proved that people who regularly receive spanking when they were just a child suffer from stunted growth. They are normally small and/or skinny (Newton, 2001).
Counter Argument
Parents and teachers are both responsible for motivating the children not only to maintaining achievements but also to maintaining good values and right conduct. It has become one of the strategies of teachers and parents to use various forms of corporal punishment to ensure that the children will learn how to behave well by not doing and redoing deviant acts. it has been the method that most of our great grand parents do to their own children and it has become the habit of most teachers before so as to discipline the students who have been behaving really bad in schools. They were able to maintain discipline both at home and schools. There were lesser crimes in school and there were lesser deviant students before because of corporal punishment.
Based on varied peer reviewed journals, violent punishments are proven methods of disciplining the children, especially when at school. In countries where corporal or violent punishment is banned in schools, many teachers have been complaining about the hardships and ordeals they have to deal with everyday with the students.
Like for example in New Zealand where teachers are instructed not to practice any form of corporal punishment with the students. Now, teachers are complaining that they feel abused and harassed with the young students. The students tend to become abusive. They do not respect the teachers. They swear and shout at the teachers. They throw things at the teachers and in some instances; the students physically assault the teachers. This is the reason why most teachers feel threatened and would want to resign from their works.
Conclusion
Corporal punishments may be serving as one of the most effective way of disciplining the children, but there are a number of negative impacts that such kind of punishment brings to children. Now the question is, is it not advisable to impose corporal punishment to children-students? Is corporal punishment the only way to motivate and intervene with the children?
Because of the above-stated information, it can be safely assumed that violent or corporal punishments can be the intervening factors why some children show deviant behaviors as they grow old. These are also the very reasons why some children face physical, emotional and psychological problems even as they grow old. It is for this reason that corporal punishment should not be allowed, in any way, in schools.
Gunnoe, M. I., & Mariner, C. L. (1997). Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children’s aggression. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 768-775.
Julian, T. W., & McKenry, P. C. (1993). Mediators of male violence toward female intimates. Journal of Family Violence, 8, 39-56.
Lombardo, Lucien X. and Polonko, Karen A. (2005). “Comparative Analysis of the Corporal Punishment of Children: An Exploration of Human Rights and US Law”, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. Vol. 29, No.2, pp. 173
Strauss, Murray A, Gelles, Richard J., and Smith, Christine. (1990). Physical Violence in American Families; Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
The Commonwealth Fund, (1999) Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health,.Gelles, R. J., & Edfeldt, A.W. (1986). Violence toward children in the United States and Sweden. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 501-510.
Corporal punishment of preschoolers carries a high risk of teaching the children to use violence to resolve the crisis and it results in lasting damage to their physical and emotional development, therefore parents must seek alternate forms of disciplining their children.
Despite the adoption of policies that prevent disciplining of children through corporal punishment in a number of countries like Norway, Sweden, Italy, Croatia, and Finland among others, there are indications that many children in the USA are spanked by their parents (94% of the parents) according to Straus and Stewart (1999), by the time they reach 3-4 years old. The debate has attracted controversy with some people showing its advantages and disadvantages. Whereas some professionals and psychologists argue that corporal punishment is effective, some differ from this view. Some of the indications that the activity is not effective and is harmful are according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (1998), and Straus (1994).
Corporal punishment is defined by states such as Alaska, and Arizona as using reasonable force which should also be appropriate, moderate, necessary, and others such as New York and Texas view it as the use of force that is not deadly (Davidson, 1997). According to Straus (1994), it is the correcting or controlling of a child’s behavior through the use of physical force to inflict pain on the child. The differing definition may also be used to show the different conception and focus by different people for different types of analysis.
According to Gershoff, laboratory research has shown positive results in making children comply immediately and on a short-term basis (Newsom, Flavell, & Rincover, 1983). The author views that most of the research in the area of immediate compliance and corporal punishment is not based on observations but on inquiry from the parents of what type of punishments used and the parents’ description on the children’s response as concerns immediate response, and then they relate the frequency of punishment to the told story (e.g., Lytton, 1977; Minton, Kagan, & Levine, 1971; Power & Chapieski, 1986). According to this author, corporal punishment that yields positive compliance in a time far from the time of punishment indicates internalization. The writer views that moral internalization can not result from corporal punishment since it does not involve communicating the effects of a child’s behavior on others, may make the child develop the disability of avoiding being caught, and doesn’t teach good-behaving in children (Hoffman, 1983; Grusec, 1983; Smetana, 1997). The writer is of the view that public policy and research be used to consider the possibility of corporal punishment resulting in physical abuse. He shows data indicating that of every 1000 children who are below 18 years of age, 13 have been in one way or the other abused or neglected, and 21 % of them suffered physical abuse. The author indicates that meta-analysis cannot resist future studies on corporal punishment.
According to the authors, 59% of the Manitoba mothers of preschoolers used physical punishment in the previous 2 weeks (Ateah & Durrant, 2005). Controversy in the research carried out on parents’ use of physical force and spanking is further indicated in this research that indicates that disciplining a child through force such as spanking was supported by 64% of the surveyed 1000 people in an SES/Sun Media poll in January 2004, yet the research indicates that use of physical force was a major opposition. The author indicated that 50% of the parents surveyed in 2002 used (them or their spouses) inflicted light corporal punishment on children whereas only 6% inflicted painful ones. More reports which may indicate the need for people to take concern for the cases of corporal punishment possible to resulting in physical abuse are the reports of federal statistics that corporal punishment involving the use of blows with wooden paddles, time holes being cut in the paddle to inflict pain. Whether or not there are conflicting views on the issue of corporal punishment, the reality is that there is enough data to reveal the usage of force to inflict pain on children, including preschoolers.
This is one of the studies that can be used to test the claims that spanking and other means of imparting corporal punishment to children can result in positive total change in children as projected by some authors or as may be believed by many parents. The authors carried out research to determine the effects of corporal punishment on antisocial behavior among children and found evidence that spanking and other methods used by parents to impart corporal punishment on children do result in substantial negative effects. The author reports the views of other research work like Eamon (2001) that antisocial behavior of children may be affected to increasing in latter years by corporal punishment. Other people the author quotes as having found that increased antisocial behavior resulted in children due to imparting corporal punishment is Straus and colleagues (1997).
The author found in their study that no evidence of differences of corporal punishment effects on antisocial behavior across racial and ethnic lines. Corporal punishment was found to affect latter antisocial behavior among children in a non-trivial manner.
The author is of the view that beginning with tactics of disciplining that are less severe for example use of reasoning and proceeding with stricter tactics if initial tactics do not effectively produce acceptable compromise or compliance. Whereas many researchers have divided themselves in either line of criticism or support to the corporal punishment, the author seems to offer a strategy to solving the real problem at hand (“Corporal Punishment of Children (Spanking)”). Researchers should therefore embark on the criteria to researching on best ways of disciplining children, which is the problem at hand.
Psychiatric and addiction
In another study, Harriet MacMillan together with other teammates investigated the association existing between problems in adult behavior and spanking of children at childhood in Canada and found a linear association between lifetime prevalence of behaviors alcohol abuse, dependency, and externalizing problems, and anxiety disorders with slapping and spanking at childhood. Their analysis was based on the data of the 1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health and involved 10000 adults. 13.2% of those who were sometimes or often spanked showed the behavior of abusing alcohol or addiction as compares to 5.8% who were never spanked and 10.2% of those who were rarely spanked (“Psychiatric and addiction”. More than one disorder involving addiction, antisocial behavior, and illicit drug abuse was found to be more among those who were sometimes spanked or those spanked more often (16.7%), compared to those that were never spanked (7.5%) and those that rarely were spanked (12.6%). Moreover, those tied with alcohol abuse as a result of being spanked were more (those that were often or at times spanked (13.2%)), compared to 10.2% of those that were rarely spanked and 5.8%-those that were never spanked. A larger percentage than was often or sometimes spanked (21.3%) was associated with anxiety disorder as compared to 16.3 % that was never spanked and 18.8% that was rarely spanked (“Psychiatric and addiction”).
Results that were linked to physical punishment of individuals include violence of prison inmates, High School Dropouts, and professionalism. In a study involving 52 slow achievers at Richmond High School, Delinquents, 372 college students, and 200 psychologists, a survey linked these and other results to individual physical punishment. Among the violent inmates at San Quentin, 100% of them were physically punished in an extreme manner as compared to zero percent of those never, rarely, moderately, or severely punished. 69% of High School dropouts were severely punished as compared to zero percent of those that were never punished. Yet an indicator that does not trash the benefits of physical punishment-joining college and becoming a professional indicated some presence of positive influence of it, but a tendency is present that it was carried out in a more moderate and rare manner in the latter case and rare to the severe manner in the first case. Only 2% of the college freshmen were never punished as compared to 40 % who were moderately punished, 33% that were severely punished, and 23% who were rarely punished. Amongst the professionals who were involved in this study, the highest percentage 40% was rarely punished as compared to only 5 % of those that were never punished, 36% that were moderately punished, 17 % that were severely punished, and 0% that were extremely punished (“Psychiatric and addiction”).
Conclusion
There is data evidence that punishing a child may through corporal means not lead to the realization of benefits as is widely believed by many and argued by some. Professionals have linked increased antisocial behavior to corporal punishment through spanking. There is an indication that better results may be achieved through controlled means of punishing a child such as incorporating love and using reasoning initially and progressing to stricter means of punishing the child if no benefits are realized.
References
Ateah, C. & Durrant, J. E. (2005). “Maternal use of physical punishment in response to child misbehavior: Implications for child abuse prevention”, Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, pp.177-193
Canadian Press and Leger Marketing. Child Abuse Report, 2002. Montreal, PQ: Canadian Press and Leger Marketing
Gershoff Elizabeth. “Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoritical Review”.
Grusec, J. E. (1983). The internalization of altruistic dispositions: A cognitive analysis. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development (pp. 275–293). New York: Cambridge University Press
Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes in moral inter-internalization. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development (pp. 236–274). New York: Cambridge University Press
Lytton, H. (1977). Correlates of compliance and the rudiments of con-science in two-year-old boys. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sci-ence, 9, 242–251
Minton, C., Kagan, J., & Levine, J. A. (1971). Maternal control and obedience in the two-year-old. Child Development, 42, 1873–1894
Newsom, C., Flavell, J. E., & Rincover, A. (1983). The side effects of punishment. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 285–316). New York: Academic Press
Power, T. G., & Chapieski, M. L. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in toddlers: A naturalistic observation. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 22, 271–275
Smetana, J. G. (1997). Parenting and the development of social knowledge reconceptualized: A social domain analysis. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 162–192). New York: Wiley
Straus, M. A. (1994a). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. New York: Lexington Books
Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55–70
“The nature and extent of Corporal punishment –Prevalence and attitudinal Research in north America. Summaries prepared by the global initiative to end All corporal punishment of children”.
The negative physical/psychological effects of corporate punishment on children.
What Science Says About Using Physical Force to Punish a Child?
Summary
The article discusses the negative effect of using violence to discipline children, especially in their early childhood learning and development. According to the author, early childhood development gains direction from several factors. Genetic factors such as nature, gender, and health conditions, which arise from within the children, play an essential role in children’s growth, development, and relationship with others. Therefore, the author argues that a child exposed to continuous violent disciplinary acts is likely to experience slow or negatively skewed development. When a child is exposed to extreme violent discipline, he or she may be stigmatized. The author is definite that community and social structure influence child development.
Quotations
The author states that “young victims of violence may start withdrawing and behaving differently as a coping strategy” (Samakow par. 11). Since using violence to discipline children does not allow the young minds to engage the free spirit that promotes creativity, “the learning process at home or in school may be compromised since applying force as a corrective measure may be counterproductive” (Samakow par. 14). When nothing is done to help such a victim, the child may grow into a violent adult with very poor socialization skills. The quotes confirm that the use of violence to discipline children interferes with early childhood learning, which plays an essential role in child development.
Physical Punishment in Childhood: The Rights of the Child. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Summary
The book provides a wide range of views; the authors explore the fine line between normalized physical punishment and illegal or unacceptable physical and emotional abuse of children. It builds on the emerging field of research that provides opportunities for children to speak for themselves about their views and experiences. It provides observations from children, professionals, and several generations from within individual families. Also, it discusses the power of language used by parents, professionals, and the media to describe physical punishment.
Quotations
The author states “The silencing and powerlessness of children who suffer degrading and unjust treatment by adults responsible for their care and protection is a characteristic of childhood often maintained by sanctioned physical punishment” (Saunders and Goddard, 2008, p.415). Prof. Goddard states that “it seems clear that ‘much violence is learned at home, home, therefore, is surely where we should begin to arrest the process” (Goddard, 1994, p. 12).
Corporal Punishment of Children
Summary
In his article, Lenta strived to promote the idea that the practice of subjecting children to corporal punishment cannot be considered appropriate. The author’s line of reasoning, in this respect, is concerned with outlining the main pro-punishment arguments and exposing them, as such that is being utterly inconsistent with the realities of modern living. For example, Lenta mentions the fact that the application of corporal punishment often does prove rather effective, as the inexpensive and convenient instrument of correcting children’s behavior.
According to the author, many people also believe that by subjecting their children to corporal punishment, they help the latter to become emotionally comfortable with the notion of discipline – something that should benefit children in the long term. Lenta, however, refutes these claims by pointing out what appear to be the main indications of the concerned practice’s inappropriateness, such as the fact that corporal punishment violates the child’s “right to security of the person” and the “right not to suffer degrading punishment” (699). This positions Lenta’s article, as such that is being strongly opposed to the idea that there is nothing wrong with administering corporal punishment to children.
Quotations
“Corporal punishment cannot be justified on consequentialist grounds because it involves the infliction of pain that has not conclusively been shown to do significant good, because it poses some risk of serious harm, and because there are alternative punishments that bring about as much (if not more) benefit at a lower cost” (Lenta 690). “The unfair discrimination inherent in the corporal punishment of children is a serious moral wrong. It is a violation of the ideal of respect for the equal dignity of all” (Lenta 705).
Even though the authors of the above-summarized articles (and the book) took different approaches to define the actual effects of corporate punishment on children, they all agree that most of these effects are strongly negative. The following is the synthesis of the actual insights, as to the inappropriateness of subjecting children to corporal punishment, contained in the reviewed sources:
Corporal punishment results in the social alienation of children. While subjected to it, the child will naturally come to assume that there is something utterly wrong about him or her, which in turn will lead this person to begin experiencing the sensation of self-loathing. In its turn, this explains why corporate punishment is being often discussed as the strong contributive factor behind one’s tendency to exhibit mentally abnormal behavior. As Saunders and Goddard noted: “Physical (corporal) punishment may effectively devalue children, foster poor self-esteem and contribute to a fearful and coercive environment” (114). This suggestion is fully justified because, as psychologists are being well aware, children rarely assign any moral significance to the punishment that they receive – for them, it is essentially the matter of a ‘lesser force’ being subdued by a ‘greater force’. Consequently, this results in convincing them that the ways of the world are strongly unjust and that adults cannot be trusted. As the ultimate consequence, the likelihood to end up becoming socially alienated/violently minded individuals, on the part of people with the childhood-experience of having been corporally punished, increases rather substantially. What is even worse, as a result of having been punished physically (verbally), children are likely to develop a rebellious attitude towards adults and to eventually become even less manageable, in the behavioral sense of this word – as the gesture of paying their punishers with the same token of respect. According to Samakow: “Physical punishment encourages kids to continue the cycle of abuse…. children who are hit are more likely to use the action to solve problems with their peers and siblings” (par. 11). Such an eventual scenario is also predetermined by the sheer cuteness of how children perceive the surrounding reality. After all, children have always been known for their ability to learn rather quickly that the most energetically effective way for them to avoid being punished, is to make sure they are not caught doing wrong things – as opposed to ceasing to be affiliated with these things, altogether.
Corporal punishment of children often leads to physical abuse. The very juxtaposition of a child (the punished) against an adult (the punisher), naturally presupposes the heightened possibility for the latter to end up miscalculating the actual strength, with which psychical punishment is being administered – especially if such widely used forms of corporal punishment as spanking and paddling are being concerned. This, in turn, may result in the punished child sustaining physical injuries. According to Saunders and Goddard: “In some cases, the mild ‘smack’ or ‘tap’ on a child’s hand or bottom escalates into severe and sometimes criminal abuse. Even fatal abuse has been linked to physical punishment” (4). What contributes towards increasing the likelihood of such a scenario, is that neither parents nor teachers are qualified in administering physical punishment. In this respect, the realities of post-industrial living in the West need to be considered, as well. After all, these realities presuppose the parents/teachers’ continual exposure to the increasing amounts of (often irrelevant) information, on one hand, and to the requirement to apply ever more effort into ensuring that they retain their ‘place under Sun’, on the other – hence, causing them to experience the sensation of emotional distress on a semi-permanent basis. However, it is a well-known fact that the stressed-out individuals do not only exhibit a tendency to indulge in violence, but also to use excessive force, while on the rampage. Yet, as practice indicates, most parents/teachers decide in favor of resorting to corporal punishment, as the instrument of ‘correcting’ children, when all other options have been exhausted, which means that the actual process of administering this kind of punishment is highly emotional and consequently – prone to abuse.
The application of corporal punishment to children undermines their chances to become socially responsible individuals. Even though that a child of just about any age (with the exemption of toddlers) can be corporally punished, it is namely the children from six to thirteen years old, who appear to be the most vulnerable to the prospect of facing such a punishment. At this age, most children gain a preliminary awareness of the notion of what a civil right stands for. Therefore, when subjected to corporal punishment, they are being naturally prompted to doubt the conceptual validity of the notion in question. This simply could not be otherwise – the very premise that children can be administered corporal punishment presupposes this punishment’s discriminatory essence: “Corporal punishment unfairly discriminates against children. The unfair discrimination inherent in the corporal punishment of children is a serious moral wrong. It is a violation of the ideal of respect for the equal dignity of all” (Lenta 705). Therefore, there is nothing too surprising about the fact that, as many studies indicate, individuals with a history of having been excessively exposed to corporal punishments, tend to exhibit a rather cynical attitude towards the idea that it is specifically the impersonal law, which defines the qualitative dynamics within the society. As a logical result, these individuals often choose to break the law, as the mean of trying to make their lives count. It is understood, of course, that this situation can hardly be considered thoroughly tolerable, which in turn explains why, as time goes on, the idea of banning corporal punishment, as the method of disciplining children, becomes increasingly popular with more and more people.
Corporal punishment is capable of setting children on the path of sexual deviation. As it was mentioned earlier, corporal punishment is primarily about inflicting physical pain upon a child, which is being done in a variety of different ways. The common assumption, in regards to these methods of discipline, is that after having been subjected to them, the child will be naturally prompted to associate physical pain with the wrongdoing – something that should make him or her think twice, before deciding in favor of the latter. However, what is being usually overlooked, in this respect, is that the process of administering this kind of punishment is utterly humiliating. Yet, as psychologists are being aware, those who end up being subjected to humiliation continuously, are likely to develop an unhealthy taste for being treated in such a manner (sadomasochism), and towards inflicting pain upon others. According to Saunders and Goddard: “Cumulative evidence suggests that physical punishment may (at least in part) be responsible for … masochistic sexual relationships” (144). What it means is that, regardless of whether they do it willingly or unwillingly, but by administering corporal punishment to their children, parents do make it more likely for the former to turn psychologically/mentally deviant: “Spanking alters kids’ brains” (Samakow par. 15). There is an even more sinister aspect to this – as practice shows, the main reason for some parents/teachers to decide in favor of subjecting the child to corporal punishment is that they derive sadistic pleasure out of it. It is understood, of course, that under this type of circumstances, the punishing of children ceases to serve even a nominal ‘corrective’ function and becomes the instrument of these children’s victimization. This, however, does not only represent an acute risk to the affected children’s normal development, but also the well-being of the society, as a whole, which is another reason why the practice of corporal punishment is being increasingly criticized.
Overall, all three sources do agree that the range of negative effects of corporate punishment on children is indeed rather wide and that parents/teachers should do their best to avoid taking advantage of this disciplinarian instrument. Even though the authors do deserve to be given a credit for having done a fair amount of research on the given topic, many of the contained contra-punishment claims, on their part, appear to be somewhat biased. The practical value of the reviewed sources would be much higher if the authors focused more on supporting these claims with references to the empirical studies, as to the negative effects of corporal punishment on children.
The positive psychological/physical effects of corporal punishment on children (as seen by some authors)
Social Theory and Practice
Summary
This particular article is quite unusual, in the sense that it can be discussed as being nothing short of an apologetic account of children’s corporal punishment. The reason for this is that in it, the author aimed to substantiate the idea that, once assessed from the consequentialist and retributivist perspectives, the practice will appear fully justified. As Benatar noted: “Given… that the (negative) effects (of corporal punishment) are not substantial, there is a strong likelihood that they could be overridden by other considerations in a consequentialist calculation” (243).
The author’s approach to arguing in favor of his point of view on the subject matter in question is concerned with the deployment of the rhetorical principle of reductio ad absurdum. For example, according to the author, to claim that applying physical punishment to the child prompts him or her to adopt a tolerant attitude towards violence, would be the same as to claim that keeping convicts incarcerated endorses the idea that the best way to deal with people who displease us, is to throw them into jail. At the same time, however, Benatar does agree with the suggestion that parents/teachers should try their best to avoid subjecting children to corporal punishment.
Quotations
“Corporal punishment indeed involves the application of direct and intense power to the body, but I do not see how that constitutes a more severe lowering of somebody’s standing than employing indirect and mild power in the course of a strip-search, for example” (Benatar 242). “Punishment in schools can be seen as serving a useful educational purpose. It facilitates the move from the jurisdiction of the family to the jurisdiction of the state, teaching the child that punishment is not always inflicted by close people who love one and no one” (Benatar 239).
Paddling and the Repression of the Feminine in Male Hazing
Summary
In his article, Mechling deploys a psychoanalytical approach to discussing the actual significance of administering corporal punishment (spanking/paddling) to children (boys). According to the author, this practice serves the role of encouraging young boys to adopt the patriarchal outlook on how society functions. The reason for this is that spanking/paddling of boys is in essence the sublimation of sexual intercourse. As Mechling noted: “The paddle embodies masculine power and authority… The shape of the paddle itself may suggest the phallus, the ultimate symbol of power in a patriarchal society” (63).
What it means is that, when subjected to this kind of punishment, the boys are being naturally prompted to a) associate the notion of ‘masculinity’ with the notion of ‘authority’, b) repress the unconscious feminine anxieties within themselves, as ‘shameful’. This, in turn, is supposed to familiarize boys with the idea that it is thoroughly natural for them to be concerned with the thoughts of domination, and consequently to increase their chances to attain a social prominence, by the time they reach adulthood. Even though Mechling’s article does not directly relate to the paper’s actual subject matter, it nevertheless contains several in-depth insights, into what creates the objective preconditions for corporal punishment to continue being administered to children.
Quotations
“The male buttocks signify both strength and vulnerability. It displays the male musculature, but it is also the site where a man can be feminized” (64). “We note that the origins of paddling (as the form of corporal punishment) in the late nineteenth century… coincides with a growing “crisis in masculinity” experienced in both England and the United States” (71).
Even though the practice of subjecting children to corporal punishment is now being ostracized, some authors nevertheless believe that there at least a few benefits to it, as well. The mentioned two articles exemplify the validity of this suggestion because as a result of having been introduced to them, one will come to realize that there is indeed a good reason for the concerned practice to remain controversial, rather than to be banned altogether. The foremost discursive premise, upon which the authors build their line of argumentation, can be outlined as follows: the very fact that this type of punishment has been used since the dawn of history, suggests it is indeed fully consistent with the laws of evolution – the main driving force behind humanity’s continual advancement. Hence, the hypothesized positive effects:
Corporal punishment, administered (moderately) by parents to their children, helps the latter to develop the sense of social responsibility and the ability to understand the dialectical relationship between causes and effects. The logic behind this suggestion is that, while subjected to such punishment (properly administered), children are likely to think of it as ‘fair’, simply because on an intuitive level, they know that their parents do not wish them any harm, as something that has the value of a ‘thing in itself’. In its turn, this helps the punished to recognize the long-term beneficence of having been forced to go through the ordeal. The suggestion’s validity is being indirectly supported by the fact that, even though there is indeed much of a public outcry to ban corporal punishment, many empirical studies, concerned with defining the negative psychological effects of such punishment on children, imply that the practice in question is not quite as morally wicked, as it is being commonly assumed. According to Benatar: “Although there is evidence that excessive corporal punishment can significantly increase the chances of psychological harm (on children), most of the psychological data are woefully inadequate to the task of demonstrating that mild and infrequent corporal punishment has such consequences” (242). The fact that many adults reflect upon having been corporally punished by their parents in the past, as such that did them a great deal of good, serves as yet additional proof of the validity of this point of view. Benatar suggests that this simply could not be otherwise. Due to being cognitively underdeveloped, children are naturally driven to form their behavioral attitudes reactively to whatever happens to be the externally induced stimuli. What it means is that if parents are being quick enough to ensure that their children associate delinquency with pain (humiliation), it will indeed have a strongly positive effect on these children’s ability to choose in favor of the socially appropriate way of addressing life-challenges.
Corporal punishment helps children to become emotionally adjusted to the actual ways of the world. Even though that in the civilized society, people’s violent attitudes are being condemned, it does not change the fact that violence remains the ultimate instrument of ensuring that citizens act in the socially appropriate manner – the existence of such institution as police, supports the validity of this claim. Moreover, the factor of violence continues to have a strong effect on the qualitative dynamics of the relationship between the society members – even if it is being extrapolated in the seemingly non-violent form. The reason for this is that, regardless of what appears to be the existential mode of a particular person, he or she inevitably strives to attain dominance within the society. In its turn, this creates the objective preconditions for the presence of semi-violent tensions within even the most advanced/tolerant society. Therefore, by subjecting children to corporal punishment, parents help their young ones to become accustomed to the idea that life itself is rather ‘unfair’, which in turn has a positive effect on the measure of these children’s existential competitiveness. As Benatar suggested: “There is no reason why children should not learn about it (violence). Punishing children when they do wrong seems to be one important way of doing this” (246). Essentially the same line of reasoning drives the practice of forcing children to attend the classes of sex-education – the sooner they learn about the technical aspects of the ‘baby-making’ process, the better. Similarly, the sooner the child learns that pain (either physical or mental) is the actual price for making wrong decisions in life; the more likely it will be for him or she considers the would-be consequences of choosing in favor of a particular course of action while trying to make the best out of life.
The application of corporal punishment against boys helps to maintain society’s structural integrity. The logic behind this suggestion is that, while being administered this type of punishment, boys are expected to refrain from reacting to the ordeal in an emotionally charged manner, such as crying, for example. Thus, along with serving as the correctional tool, corporal punishment serves the function of teaching boys how to repress their feminine anxieties – something that in turn leads towards strengthening the factor of gender-differentiation within the society. As Mechling pointed out: “(Corporal punishment) performed in the carefully framed ritual… is not the product of testosterone out of control. Rather, the critics of hazing need to understand that safe hazing practices such as paddling play a crucial role in the social and psychological construction of heterosexual masculinity” (70). The reason why this factor needs to be strengthened is that, as practice indicates, for men and women to be able to form long-lasting marital relationships, they need to be strongly affiliated with the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ values, respectively. This, in turn, implies that the process of the notion of corporal punishment falling out of favor with more and more people is not quite as objective as it may seem to be. Rather, it is being reflective of the fact that Western societies grow increasingly feminized.
It is understood, of course, that both articles cannot be considered thoroughly consistent with the discourse of political correctness, because they promote the idea that the continual use of corporal punishment on children has been dialectically predetermined. This, however, does not lessen the degree of both articles’ discursive usefulness. In the future, the authors could consider inquiring into whether the elements of corporal punishment could be incorporated into the alternative (non-punitive) methods of disciplining children.
The alternative (non-punitive) methods of disciplining children.
Discipline without Punishment
Summary
This article discusses different violent disciplinary acts that are directed towards children and their effect on the growth and development of the minors. According to the author, the role of parenting involves proactive reasoning and being in control of children’s lives to create a global citizen. The process has no specific role, but a cluster of adult responsibilities such as providing basic needs, love, and moral support in all spheres of life.
The author suggests alternatives to using violence to discipline children with the same or better results. According to the author, the first step is defining basic family and society morals that oppose violence, however mild it is. A responsible parent should make sure these aspects are internalized in their thought patterns when planning or executing disciplinary acts on children. For instance, a parent might offer corrective punishment for any unbecoming behavior by using dialogue as a correction tool with very effective results without having any physical or psychological pain on a child.
Quotations
The author is categorical that using violence to discipline a child “may turn out to be harmful, especially when the parent or teacher is overcome by emotions in the process” (Wilson par. 9). The author suggests alternatives to using violence to discipline children with the same or better results. A responsible parent should make sure these aspects are internalized in their thought patterns when planning or executing disciplinary acts on children. For instance, a parent might “offer corrective punishment for any unbecoming behavior through using dialogue as a correction tool with very effective results without inflicting any physical or psychological pain on a child” (Wilson par. 11). The quotes highlight alternatives to using violence to discipline a child, such as dialogue and instigating psychological adjustment variables such as control of depression, self-esteem, and life satisfaction among the children.
Effective Discipline for Children
Summary
The article, Effective Discipline for Children, discusses moderate discipline on child development as compared to using violence. According to the authors, child development depends on a lot of factors. These factors include love, caring, provision of basic needs, and security. Reflectively, a violent disciplinarian parent is likely to put children at a glaring risk of total behavioral, emotional, mental, and social development of child physical and psychological aspects of growth.
Children exposed to violent disciplinary actions by parents, guardians, or teachers are vulnerable to depression, eating disorders, and even unending anxiety. Some of the characteristics of a child exposed to continuous violent disciplinary acts include poor physical and psychological health, trauma, fear, irresponsible, and rudeness behavior among peers.
Quotations
In the ideal, “an effective discipline does not instill shame, negative guilt, and a sense of abandonment or a loss of trust. Instead, it instills a sense of greater trust between the child and the parent” (Nieman et al. 38). The authors are categorical that “parents should refrain from hurting the child’s self-esteem by instilling shame, guilt, loss of trust, or a sense of abandonment” (Nieman et al. 40). These quotes highlight the negative effects of using violence to discipline children.
The authors of these two articles do agree that parents/teachers should consider resorting to the alternative (non-punitive) strategies when addressing children’s delinquency. In particular, the authors make numerous references to the following alternative approaches to introducing children to the notion of discipline, without subjecting them to corporal punishment:
Making an analytical inquiry into why a particular child misbehaves, to find the circumstantially justified non-punitive method for influencing his or her behavior for the better. As it was pointed out earlier, the discursive paradigm of corporal punishment can no longer be considered thoroughly consistent with the realities of today’s living – something that both authors never cease stressing out, throughout the entirety of their articles. For example, according to Wilson: “Punishment stops bad behavior for the moment. Punishment does not teach the behavior you want. Punishment does not cause good behavior” (1). The reason for this is that, in light of recent discoveries in the field of genetics, the child’s tendency to act in one way or another appears to be rather biologically than environmentally predetermined. The case of autistic children illustrates the validity of this suggestion perfectly well. After all, it does not make any secret that these children are known for their strongly defined anti-social attitudes, which at times appear to be intentionally malicious. Yet, it would prove utterly inappropriate to subject autistic kids to corporal punishment – the would-be undertaken measure will have no positive effect, whatsoever. Therefore, parents and teachers should consider resorting to non-violent methods of influencing children’s behavior. One of them would be trying to appeal to the child’s sense of rationale – especially if he or she is old enough to understand the meaning of the ethics-related terms. As Wilson suggested: “Ask the child the reason for the misbehavior before you punish. Allow the child a chance to explain. Children do not think like adults. The child’s motive may have been good” (2329-4). It is understood, of course, that this particular intervention-strategy is much more time-consuming, as compared to spanking/paddling, for example. Yet, there is a good reason to believe that parents/teachers should prioritize it when it comes to disciplining children.
Providing children with anticipatory guidance, in regards to what accounts for the negative effects of delinquency. This idea reflects the assumption that: “Undesirable behaviors are best avoided through prevention and by building supportive structures that include clear, consistent rules” (Nieman, Alberta, Shea and Scotia 37). The best approach for parents/teachers to proceed with doing it is by holding informal conversations with children while telling them that there is a good reason for people to behave in a socially appropriate manner. Even though there can be no guarantee that the deployment of this delinquency-prevention strategy will prove utterly effective, parents/teachers should still consider resorting to it, as the means to give children yet another reason to think of adults as their friends and mentors, rather than the enemies.
Providing non-punitive incentives for children to refrain from misbehaving. As of today, it becomes increasingly clear to educators that, within the context of a parent/teacher applying the ‘stick and carrot’ approach towards addressing the child’s misbehavior, the emphasis should be placed on enthralling the young one with the prospect of receiving the ‘carrot’. In plain words, when it comes to correcting the child, parents and teachers should never cease being observant of the fact that, due to being concerned with trying to achieve instant gratification, as an integral part of their existential mode, children are more than capable of indulging in the socially productive behavior. Provided, of course, that they associate it with the prospect of receiving a much-desired reward. In its turn, this presupposes that the important element of effective parenting is assessing the subtleties of the child’s psychological makeup – something that can be achieved by the earlier mentioned non-punitive method of anticipatory guidance: “Anticipatory guidance offers… an opportunity for prevention, to discuss the type of discipline according to the child’s developmental age” (Nieman, Alberta, Shea and Scotia 38).
In light of these insights, inferred from both articles, there can be only a few doubts that the manners, in which the affiliated authors went about arguing what can be deemed the most effective methods of addressing children’s delinquency, are indeed mutually complementary. At the same time, however, many suggestions, contained in the reviewed articles, appear rather formulaic. Had the authors provided more references to the discursively relevant empirical studies (in support of the promoted ideas), it would contribute rather substantially to the measure of these articles’ objectiveness.
Additional insights into the discussed subject matter
Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers
Summary
The main thesis, promoted by Dupper and Dingus throughout their article’s entirety, is that the appropriateness/inappropriateness of the practice of subjecting children to corporal punishment, cannot be thought of in terms of a ‘thing in itself’, in the social sense of this word. That is, the actual essence of the ethical outlook on it, shared by most people, is predetermined by the currently predominant socio-cultural discourse.
According to the authors, this is the reason why the practice in question is being considered legal in the U.S. Southern states – in this part of the country, the social influence of Christianity (the religion that endorses physical punishment of children) continues to remain rather considerable. Nevertheless, Dupper and Dingus do not doubt the objectiveness of the fact that there is a negative correlation between the popularity of corporal punishment, as the instrument of children’s ‘correction’, and the quality of living standards in the affiliated area. This, of course, endows their article with the clearly defined progressive sounding.
Quotations
“The use of corporal punishment in schools is associated with damaging physical and psychological outcomes that can affect some children for the remainder of their lives” (Dupper and Dingus 245). “Higher rates of child abuse fatalities occur in states that allow corporal punishment in the schools, and students are more likely to die from school shootings in states where corporal punishment is used” (Dupper and Dingus 246).
Discipline for Young Children-Discipline and Punishment: What is the Difference?
Summary
This article discusses conflicts that might arise between parents in the process of disciplining children. The article is categorical that poor conflict management tools may lead to the use of violence on children in the name of exercising disciplinary authority. Even though most of the parents have the best interest of the child, conflict arises when they do not attend the necessary training on how to handle children (Telep par. 7).
For instance, the author discusses a conflict situation involving one of the parents and the organization on the need to attend obligatory training on foster parenting. As a strategy for managing this conflict, the stakeholders in child protection from aggression should engage the parents in foster care training to ensure that there is no conflict with the child when it comes to discipline and parenting (Telep par. 7).
Quotations
Therefore, “conflict can be used as a tool for proactive child correction through looking beyond the conventional violent disciplinary strategy” (Telep par. 11). One of such programs proposed by the author is the RDRESS program. RDRESS is an abbreviation for Resolving Disputes and Reaching an Equitable Solution Swiftly. This model involves “proactive problem identification and examination of the impact of mediation on the child’s integrity” (Telep par. 14). The quotes highlight the need for proactive disciplinary actions to avoid the counterproductive results that arise from using violence to discipline children.
Both of the summarized articles are valuable, in the sense of helping readers to gain a better understanding of what makes the practice of corporal punishment to continue being used against children, even though it sparks much public controversy. In this respect, we can accentuate the following insights of relevance:
The qualitative aspects of the concerned practice should be discussed in conjunction with what happened to be the practitioners’ religious stance: “Often, attitudes toward physical punishment reflect religious beliefs and ideas about what children are like” (Telep par. 21). Regardless of what happened to be the actual form of corporal punishment, it reflects essentially the same discursive premise – it is possible to ‘correct’ the behavioral model of a young person by making him or her associate its anti-social behavior (as perceived by parents/teachers) with the sensation of a strong emotional/physical discomfort, induced by the application of corporal punishment. In its turn, this can be thought of as the remnant of the Judeo-Christian outlook on the process of the child’s upbringing. After all, it does not represent any secret that even today, many Christians believe that it is possible for ‘demons’ to invade one’s body, to turn it into their sanctuary – something that used to be traditionally perceived, as the reason why some children exhibit a rather intolerable behavior. Therefore, it was thoroughly logical, on the part of religious people to assume that, by inflicting pain to the body of the misbehaving child, they would be able to make ‘demons’ to consider leaving it for good. This explains why the practice of subjecting children to corporal punishment is being particularly popular throughout the so-called ‘Bible belt’ in America: “The southern and southwestern states practice a traditional, conservative, Evangelical Protestant religion, in which literal interpretations of the Bible are very common, and in which the Bible is often used to support and even demand that parents use corporal punishment on their children” (Dupper and Dingus 246). What it means is that, even though the concerned practice does exhibit the indications of being hardly justified, it is likely to remain the essential part of the process of parenting – especially in the families/schools, associated with the ‘traditional’ values.
While deciding in favor/disfavor of corporate punishment, parents/teachers should be mindful of the main psychological principles of how children tend to address life-challenges. The emergence of psychology, as a fully legitimate science, during the 20th century’s initial decades, revealed the sheer fallaciousness of the religious view on how parents/teachers should go about disciplining children. The reason for this apparent – this particular development produced a powerful effect on people’s perception of what is the driving force behind the child’s tendency to act in one way or another. It simply could not be otherwise – it is specifically the workings of one’s unconscious psyche, which define the concerned person’s individuality more than anything else does. Nevertheless, because these workings are not the subject of rationalization, there can be very little point in expecting that the child’s existential stance can be ‘corrected’ by the mean of encouraging him or her to conclude that, since delinquency results in pain, he or she would much better off staying away from the former. As Telep noted: “The child who has been treated harshly has no reason to be good. Or he may be good just to keep from being punished and not learn to be good because he thinks it is the right thing to do” (par. 6). This, in turn, calls for the reassessment of the very conceptual premise of corporate punishment. Hence, Telep’s suggestion that instead of learning not to misbehave from ‘pain’, children should learn from ‘experiences’: “Parents should tell the child before it happens, what the consequences are for breaking a rule. If the child knows that the consequence of not getting to the dinner table in time to eat with the family is not eating, then he has a choice” (par. 27). It is understood, of course, that this claim is far from being considered undisputed. However, it does illustrate the appropriateness of the suggestion that parents should pay close attention to what are the deep-seated psychological needs of their children. Because this idea is being explored throughout the entirety of both articles, there is a good rationale to think that they are indeed discursively related. The focus of additional research, in this respect, could be concerned with inquiring into what parents/teachers should do, to increase the measure of their awareness of how the child’s unconscious psyche functions.
In light of the earlier mentioned insights, as to the effects of corporal punishment on children, it can be safely assumed that, as time goes on; this type of punishment will continue being widely deployed – the practice’s very ‘convenience’ and ‘cost-effectiveness’ (as seen by parents and teachers) create the objective prerequisites for this to be the case. Another contributing factor, in this respect, is the absence of the scientifically legitimate methodology for disciplining children in a strictly non-punitive manner – suggesting that it is wrong to subject children to violence, is not enough.
At the same time, however, the measure of this punishment’s severity is likely to be progressively reduced, which in turn should come as the consequence of people’s growing awareness of the fact that administering corporal punishment to children is not only ethically dubious but that it is also something that balances on the edge of the law. This trend’s actual logic presupposes the ever increased popularity of the alternative approaches to correcting children’s behavior, such as the mentioned earlier ‘anticipatory guidance’.
Works Cited
Benatar, David. “Corporal Punishment.” Social Theory and Practice 24.2 (1998): 237-260. Print.
Dupper, David R., and Amy E. Montgomery Dingus. “Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers.” Children & Schools 30.4 (2008): 243-50. Print.
Lenta, Patrick. “Corporal Punishment of Children.” Social Theory and Practice 38.4 (2012): 689-716. Print.
Mechling, Jay. “Paddling and the Repression of the Feminine in Male Hazing.” Thymos 2.1 (2008): 60-75. Print.
Nieman, Peter, Calgary Alberta, Sarah Shea and Nova Scotia. “Effective Discipline for Children.” Paediatrics & Child Health 9.1 (2004): 37–41. Print.
Corporal punishment as a form of disciplinary action to children has elicited a fierce debate and controversy over its effectiveness in shaping children’s behavior in the society. Sociologists, psychologists, and legal experts differ on whether corporal punishment has long-term benefits in shaping children’s behavior or not. The difference in opinions has resulted into quest for more research in order to ascertain both short and long-term effects of corporal punishment on children.
Gershoff argues that, “crucial questions remain unanswered, such as what range of child behaviors and experiences are empirically associated with parental corporal punishment, as well as why, how, and for whom corporal punishment might have such effects” (539). Due to lack of empirical evidences to prove whether corporal punishment is harmful or not to the children, the opposing schools of thought are yet to justify their theoretical views and beliefs.
The research concerning corporal punishment is very complex because there are no clear-cut differences between abusive punishment and non-abusive punishment, thus confounding the research findings. Furthermore, corporal punishment and naughty behaviors have intricate relationship in that, it is very difficult to establish causal relationships. Since corporal punishment is associated with untoward childhood behaviors and experiences, it is an ineffective and an undesirable form of parental discipline.
Corporal punishment is ineffective and undesirable form of parental discipline because it only causes immediate compliance, which has short-term effects in shaping child’s behavior contrary to the long-term expectations by the parents. Numerous studies have shown that parents normally administer corporal punishment with the objective of realizing immediate compliance of the children. Empirical studies have proved that short-term compliance due to corporal punishment is very effective in learning.
“There is general consensus that corporal punishment is effective in getting children to comply immediately, but at the same time there is caution from child abuse researchers that corporal punishment by its nature can escalate into physical maltreatment” (Gershoff 549).
Meta-analysis has proved that administration of corporal punishment does not have long-term behavioral change as expected by the parents; it only causes immediate compliance, and this phenomenon beats the logic of using corporal punishment in disciplining children.
Corporal punishment is essential in achieving control of rowdy and disruptive children; nevertheless, it does not help in long-term development of behavior in children. Although corporal punishment has short-term compliance, continued and consistent administration negatively affects internalization of morals.
Continued and consistent administration of corporal punishment affects children negatively in the process internalizing the desired morals. Moral internalization is appropriate mechanism of developing acceptable behaviors because intrinsic factors rather than the extrinsic factors form the essential driving forces that compel children to mature well. Social and emotional maturation of the children critically depends on the intrinsic factors for such factors enable children to internalize moral values and beliefs in the society.
In contrast, extrinsic factors such as corporal punishment seem to have an imposing influence on the intrinsic factors thus affecting internalization of morals. The intrinsic and extrinsic factors that regulate behavior development during the growth of children have mutually exclusive effect in the development of behaviors.
According to the attribution theory, “theorists emphasize that power-assertive methods such as corporal punishment promote children’s external attributions for their behavior and minimize their attributions to internal motivations corporal punishment … may not facilitate moral internalization because it does not teach children reasons for behaving correctly” (Gershoff 541).
Therefore, corporal punishment does not instill the essence of morality to the children for children subjected to corporal punishment behave according to conditioned punishment. Since the children do not understand the essence of morality, they develop aggressive behaviors to resist or avoid severe corporal punishment.
Administration of corporal punishment results into aggressive behavior; hence it is ineffective and undesirable form of parental discipline. The relationship between corporal punishment and aggressive behavior is very complex to establish causal relationship.
Extensive literature reviews have confirmed that, there is significant positive correlation between corporal punishment and aggressive behaviors among children. These findings imply that corporal punishment promotes development of aggressive behaviors in children, thus inappropriate form of parental discipline.
Based on the attribution theory, the relationship between corporal punishment and aggressive behavior emanate from the fact that corporal punishment interferes with the internalization of moral values and beliefs, leaving children to depend on extrinsic factors as determinants of morality resulting into aggressive defense.
Social control theory also indicates that corporal punishment degrades child-parent relationship, prevent internalization of moral values, and increases aggressive behaviors due to lack of internal motivation and self-control.
Gershoff argues that, “parental corporal punishment affects children primarily by initiating and shaping emotional and cognitive processes in the children, which in turn predispose them to engage in certain behaviors or have particular experiences such as aggression” (551). Hence, cognitive processes are important in mediating and developing aggressive behaviors and experiences. However, it is very difficult to establish causal relationship between corporal punishment and development of naughty behaviors.
Despite the assumption that untoward behavior and experiences relates with corporal punishment, the causal relation between corporal punishment and development of naughty behaviors is blurred which makes it difficult to determine the causational effect. Psychological research depends on observational and experiential models to establish causal relationships but the findings do not consider confounding factors that could possibly mediate assumed causal relationship between corporal punishment and development of naughty behaviors.
Gershoff asserts that although models of correlation have assumed that corporal punishment causes naughty behaviors, they have not sufficiently ruled out the possibility that naughty behaviors to induce corporal punishment, “because corporal punishment occurs rarely and eludes observation, researchers interested in the effects of corporal punishment need to consider more ingenious methods of establishing causality” (556).
Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that causation relationship exists between corporal punishment and development of naughty behaviors. However, meta-analysis research has attempted to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that corporal punishment causes naughty behaviors in children.
The establishment of causation relationship is quite possible because meta-analysis research measures and monitors behavior development from the earliest point possible thus considering time precedence and isolating other factors that may confound the causational effect. Since there is no significance evidence to rule out that corporal punishment increases development of naughty behaviors, then corporal punishment is ineffective and undesirable form of parental discipline.
Conclusion
In a recap, the controversy regarding the effectiveness of corporal punishment still rages as the opposing schools of thoughts have strong evidence to support their views. Sociologists, psychologists and legal experts have not yet reached a conclusion that corporal punishment elicits untoward behaviors and experiences in children. Given that the relationship between corporal punishment and naughty behavior in children is very complex, it is also difficult to establish the causational relationship without making some assumptions.
Nevertheless, meta-analysis has significantly demonstrated that there is causational relationship between corporal punishment and development of naughty behaviors. The relationship between corporal punishment and naughty behaviors portrays chicken-egg relationship in that, it is difficult to establish which one of two comes first.
Works Cited
Gershoff, Elizabeth. “Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 128.4 (2002): 539–579.
The idea of using corporal punishment (CP) as the means of disciplining children has been in use for quite a while, and it still remains a common practice in a range of communities (Australian Childhood Foundation 2017). Research results, however, point to the fact that the outcomes of this specific practice may be detrimental to a child’s physical and mental health, as well as their psychological well-being (Australian Childhood Foundation 2017).
Although CP has been proven to provide parents with some modicum of control over their children’s behaviour, the approach is based on force and fear as the fundament for building relationships and setting boundaries between parents and children.
It should be borne in mind, though, that the application of CP and its perception by children varies depending on the culture to which they belong. Therefore, hearing the voice of Australian children in an endeavour to prevent the issue of CP may be complicated since some members of the target demographics may not realise that they are mistreated (Australian Childhood Foundation 2017).
Research Question
The research question, therefore, can be put in the following way: What are the key differences in the perception of CP by Australian children belonging to different cultural backgrounds, and what strategies can be used to address these specified cultural differences to prevent child abuse?
Key Terms
Term
Definition
Corporal (physical) punishment
The act of hitting someone as a means of eliciting a particular response or cause a certain change in one’s behaviour (Australian Childhood Foundation 2017).
Cultural background
Belonging to a particular community with a set of values and traditions that define one’s cultural legacy, behaviour, and social interactions (Australian Childhood Foundation 2017).
Perception of CP
Attitude toward the idea of using CP as the means of disciplining children (Australian Childhood Foundation 2017).
Children
People that are 12 years old or younger (Australian Childhood Foundation 2017).
Level of Research Design
Description
According to Neuman, as a rule, three levels of research design are typically identified (Flynn & McDermott 2016): these are the exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory design types. While the descriptive type implies an overview of a specific topic, the explanatory one suggests that a detailed clarification concerning the use or nature of a specific concept should be provided. The exploratory approach, in turn, implies that the phenomenon under analysis should be reviewed from one or more perspectives so that its effects on the target population can be identified (Creswell 2014).
Rationale
The application of the exploratory approach as the foundation for the current study is fully justified since, although there is a plethora of studies about the positive and negative effects of CP, there is a significant knowledge gap about the rights of children as far as the application of CP is concerned. Therefore, the target area would benefit from a profound analysis and detailed examination. As a result, the opportunities for changing the perception of children that view CP as acceptable will be created. The resulting rise in awareness levels among the target population will allow for exploring the associated problems more efficiently (Magliacani 2014).
In addition, the adoption of the exploratory research design will help study the connection between the cultural background of children and their response to, and perception of, CP in greater detail. A qualitative approach allows one to gain a deeper insight into the specifics of cultural diversity and its effects on the perception of CP-related issues, which makes it perfect for the present study (Creswell 2014).
Study Population and Sample
The adoption of the convenience sampling technique appears to be the most sensible step to take when considering the sampling technique for the study. The reasons for dismissing the convenience sampling approach are rather basic. By definition, the identified framework demands that the target population should be split into groups based on specific categories such as age and gender.
Given that in the case in point there is no reason to split the homogenous population into several subgroups the use of the convenience sampling technique seems more legitimate than the application of the stratified random sampling framework seems legitimate. The use of the convenience sampling approach, in turn, is justified completely since the participants will be recruited at a local school and, therefore, will be selected based on the principles of convenience. While the identified framework has its problems, particularly, the lack of opportunities for representing the diversity of the community fully, it offers extensive opportunities for cutting the costs and time spent on ersearch (Flynn & McDermott 2016).
The selection of the sampling technique is linked directly to the choice of the research design. The non-probability sampling framework, to which stratified random sampling belongs, is typically viewed as an appropriate tool for exploratory research. The application of the stratified sampling technique, in turn, allows the retrieval of precise information about the target population and, therefore, enables the researcher to draw insightful conclusions about the unique characteristics thereof.
As a result, a deeper understanding of the cultural specifics of the target population becomes a possibility. Thus, one will be able to determine the essential differences between the perceptions in question so that a comprehensive strategy for raising awareness about CP and encouraging children to report the instances of CP can be created.
Recruitment Policy: Social Networks and Flyers
The process of recruiting participants to the research will include the active use of social networks. There is no need to stress that social networks define the modern communication process. Therefore, the incorporation of the specified medium into the list of tools for recruiting the target population should be viewed as an important opportunity that must not be missed. In addition, flyers will be used to attract the target population. Two public and two primary schools will participate in the research.
At this point, one must mention the significance of ethical practice in research. By definition, the specified phenomenon implies that research participants should be recruited on a voluntary basis. In other words, the study can only be carried out once the participants are willing to partake in it. Therefore, it will be crucial to send letters of informed consent to the identified demographics. Seeing that the target population is mostly underage, it will be necessary that their parents or legal guardians should provide an informed consent confirming that the students can be a part of the experiment.
The use of the informed consent as the tool for making the study legitimate and familiarising the participants with the objectives of the study aligns with the provisions of the current code of ethics. Indeed, according to paragraph 5.2.3 in the Code of ethics, children are eligible to access the services of social workers without the need for permission from their parents or legal guardians (Australian Association of Social Workers 2010). The identified statements should be viewed as central to improving the current rates of reporting the incidences of child abuse, as well as managing the increasingly high rate of unreasonably rough child rearing techniques involving CP.
Furthermore, paragraph 5.2.4 states that the privacy and confidentiality of children must be respected. Since some children may be ashamed of their punishment-related experiences, they may need privacy during the communication process. Thus, using an interview should be viewed as a necessity. Moreover, there may be several ESL students among the participants. The service of an interpreted must be used to meet the needs of ESL students according to paragraph 5.1.2 (f) of the Code of ethics.
Furthermore, it is crucial that the rights of children should be respected in the process of conducting the research as stated in Code of Ethics 5.2.4(a) (Australian Association of Social Workers 2010). At this point, it should also be noted, though, that certain ethical dilemmas may arise. According to the provisions of the code of ethics designed by AASW, children as research subjects are entitled to the non-disclosure of their personal data.
Particularly, the researchers are obliged not to inform the parents or legal guardians of the participants about the issues that may be identified in the course of the study unless the participants are willing to share the said pieces of information. On the one hand, the specified regulation recognises the rights of the children taking part in the research. On the other hand, the outcomes of concealing certain information from parents may have a detrimental effect on children, particularly their physical and mental health.
Therefore, the choice between the policy of non-disclosure as the primary aspect of the existing code of ethics and the need to prevent possible health issues will have to be made. To act in the best interests of the children, one will have to follow the principles of the code of ethics, though. Thus, the very foundation for recognising the rights of children and promoting the further management of CP, and child-abuse-related issues, will be created.
Furthermore, the assistance of healthcare practitioners, who will provide children with extensive support so that they could address the sensitive topic of abuse, will be required. Otherwise, the students may experience painful memories that may affect them negatively. The application of a multidisciplinary approach that will promote the active collaboration between the representatives of different research areas is crucial to the overall efficacy of the study and the quality of the information that will be obtained from the participants.
The emphasis on integrating the work of experts working in different domains of child welfare promotion is bound to contribute to the design of a coherent and efficient framework for determining the connection between the cultural specifics of families and the attitudes toward CP as the means of upbringing among the family members, especially children. As a result, the strategy for promoting an alternative approach toward building relationships between parents and children, including the opportunities for building a family hierarchy and introducing a set of behavioural standards to children, will be created.
Two Different Data Collection Tools
A qualitative research method implies that qualitative relationships between the research variables will be considered. In other words, the nature of the phenomenon of child abuse, as well as the tools for addressing it, will be studied (Creswell 2014). Information that provides qualitative characteristics of the studied variables is preferred to statistical data describing the variables and the relationships between them (Creswell 2014).
The importance of data collection cannot possibly be underrated since it allows drawing essential results from the information retrieved in the process. Data collection allows an exploration of the nature of a particular phenomenon by examining the ways in which key variables interact (Flynn & McDermott 2016, pp. 144-145). In the course of research, semi-structured interviews and focus groups will be used to explore the nature and specifics of the perception of CP among Australian children of different ethnic descents. Each of the frameworks has its problems and advantages. For instance, the use of focus groups can be justified by the following facts:
Allows for direct interaction with the research participants, therefore eliciting essential information from them;
Saves money significantly by interacting with the participants as a group as opposed to questioning each of them individually;
Provides the chance of adopting a hands-on approach as the basis for carrying out the research;
Researchers are free to choose from a wider range of sample options. As a result, the outcomes of the study become less biased and more credible (Flynn & McDermott 2016).
Unfortunately, the use of focus groups also has its problems, with some of them calling into question the credibility and trustworthiness of the research results. For instance, the following issues are very characteristic of focus groups and, therefore, need to be taken into account when using the specified method of data collection:
Even though focus groups can include many participants and, therefore, be quite representative of the target population, they may fail to showcase the diversity of the target community. As a result, the information provided by them may be somewhat biased;
Focus groups can need consistent guidance from the leader; otherwise, the participants may fail to deliver the essential information;
The members of the focus groups may develop the tendency to voice the opinion of the majority as opposed to expressing their own point of view that may differ from the ones of the rest of the team members (Creswell 2014).
Similarly, the application of semi-exploring the nature of structured interviews as the opportunities for retrieving a wider range of information and exploring the phenomenon of CP, as well as the attitudes among children toward the phenomenon, implies specific advantages and disadvantages unique to this methodology. The benefits of using interviews are quite self-explanatory; the use of this tool provides researchers with an impressive amount of flexibility (Creswell 2014). The other key opportunities that can be listed among the essential positive sides of a semi-structured interview are:
Semi-structured interviews provide a researcher with an impressive amount of flexibility in shaping the communication process, identifying the areas that need to be discussed in depth;
The respondents have an opportunity to justify their answers by providing detailed clarifications and expanding on the interview questions, as well as having the ability to introduce new ideas, themes, and concepts, which they cannot do when questionnaires or structured interviews are used;
Semi-structured interviews provide a large amount of reliable qualitative data, therefore, offering extensive opportunities for carrying out qualitative analysis (Flynn & McDermott 2016).
Given the opportunities for retrieving ample amounts of data, semi-structured interviews will be used to collect the necessary information. Semi-structured interviews will help embrace a wide variety of themes and topics, therefore, providing a profound basis for the further analysis (Creswell 2014). Thus, interviews will be the primary data collection tool.
The use of interviews also implies that one will have to deal with the personal data of the participants. Therefore, the key provisions of the Code of ethics must be followed. Particularly, the Code states that the participants must have a clear understanding of the goals of the study and the way in which the data that they will provide will be used (Australian Association of Social Workers 2010, p. 27).
Thus, it will be crucial to deliver the key facts about the study “in accordance with the clients’ level of understanding” (Australian Association of Social Workers 2010, p. 27). Furthermore, the Code of ethics states that “Social workers will ensure, as far as possible, that clients understand the principle of informed consent and the circumstances in which it may be required” (Australian Association of Social Workers 2010, p. 27).
Sample Questions
Have you had any experience of corporal punishment? What kind of punishment did your parents use?
Is physical punishment acceptable or not acceptable in your culture? Can you tell a bit more?
From your point of view, do you think that physical punishment should be prohibited? Why?
Do you think it is a good or bad idea to discipline children by using physical punishment? Why?
If you were parents, how would you discipline your child?
The questions listed above were designed to determine the attitudes toward CP as a concept among the representatives of the target population. For instance, the questions set the environment in which the participants are willing to share the information that they deem as personal (particularly, their experience of CP). Furthermore, by referring to the cultural background of the respondents and asking them whether CP as a concept is acceptable in their culture, one creates prerequisites for a deeper understanding of the problem and its roots.
Specifically, the factors associated with the participants’ culture and the way in which it shapes their attitude toward CP can be located. As a result, conclusions about whether the respondents view CP as something that borders child abuse or as something entirely acceptable can be made. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that, even under the influence of the culture that accepts and encourages CP as a child-rearing technique, some participants of the study may have developed a negative attitude toward the idea.
Thus, the third question sets the background for identifying possible arguments against the use of CP as the tool for compelling children to behave. The fourth question which addresses the issue of using CP directly encourages the respondents to express their point of view regarding the reasonability of using CP. As a result, it is hoped that the level of acceptance of CP among the members of the target population can be identified.
The information retrieved in this process may explain why the incidences of child abuse remain underreported in the target community. Particularly, the perception of CP as the only acceptable technique for managing the relationships between children and parents is expected to be identified in the course of analysing the responses of the participants.
Method of Data Analysis
The adoption of a thematic analysis seems legitimate since the identified tool helps locate the dominant themes and tendencies in the responses provided by the participants. As a result, the foundation of an all-embracive analysis is built. Traditionally,, six steps of a thematic analysis are identified. These include familiarization with the data (i.e., taking interviews and reading them), coding the data (i.e., using codes to refer to certain data pieces), searching for themes (i.e, using generalized terms to refer to recurrent patterns and themes in the interviews), reviewing themes (i.e., selecting the ones that outline the key tendency), defining and naming themes, and producing the report (Braun, Clarke & Terry 2015).
In the context of the current research, the stages listed above will take the following form: interviewing the participants about their experience of CP, locating recurrent themes (e.g., the approval of CP among children), reviewing them (e.g., selecting valid ones and dismissing irrelevant ones), assigning the selected themes with specific codes, and summarizing the key findings about the perception of CP among children.
The interviews will be recorded with the help of the necessary equipment, transcribed, and re-read carefully to locate recurrent themes. The application of a thematic analysis should be viewed as a chance to enhance the authenticity of the study as soon as the crucial themes are outlined (Flynn & McDermott, 2016, p. 22). Indeed, by challenging the participants to express their opinions openly and engage in discussions, thus, introducing different standpoints on the problem in question, one will be able to retrieve a variety of data that can be used to represent each side of the argument. Consequently, the incorporation of the thematic analysis principles is bound to have a strikingly positive effect on the study’s outcomes.
It is expected that the application of the thematic analysis as the method of managing the retrieved information and arranging it accordingly will help consider the problem from multiple perspectives. For instance, the application of the thematic analysis as a tool for exploring the information provided by the respondents will help shed some light on the impact that cultural specifics have on the perception of CP.
Furthermore, the application of the thematic analysis as the means of exploring the characteristics of the participants’ points of view will show where the respondents draw a line between CP and child abuse. As a result, using an in-depth understanding of cultural factors as the driving forces behind shaping children’s and their parents’ idea of CP will become a possibility.
Furthermore, the use of the thematic analysis as the tool for examining the relationships between the key variables will allow developing an insight into the nature of the identified cultural specifics and traditions. To be more exact, the analysis will help locate the reasons for children to accept the child-rearing techniques that their parents apply and view them as acceptable. This thematic analysis may point to the direction in which the following awareness-raising program will have to go in order to promote a different strategy toward a child’s upbringing to the members of the target community.
The thematic analysis will help define the ways of promoting the idea of child welfare and respect of children’s rights to parents. As a result, the basis for a significant improvement in the relationships between parents and children, as well as the reduction in the rates of CP and child abuse, is expected.
Social Work Practice
It is expected that not only children but also parents will benefit from the results of the study in question. The first and most obvious way is that the research will contribute to the design of a program that, in turn, could lead to a significant drop in CP and child abuse rates in Australian communities, especially among the representatives of other cultures and ethnic backgrounds. In addition, the outcomes of the research will serve as the basis for reconsidering the relationships between parents and children, as well as the idea of a family hierarchy, in general. Thus, parents will be able to build relationships with their children based on the principles of trust, cooperation, and mutual respect.
Using Morton, Phipps and Nutley’s (2012) ideas about the conceptual and instrumental use of findings, the outcomes of the research will also aid in changing people’s ideas about using CP as the means of rearing children. Furthermore, the conceptual use of the framework will lead to helping the community members reconsider their notions of child welfare and children’s rights. To be more specific, it is hoped that parents will develop a respectful attitude toward their children and build their future relationships based on mutual trust and support.
As a result, the tools for disciplining children will change significantly from CP techniques to the approaches based on providing the target population with a role model that they can follow.
Finally, using the Australian Childhood Foundation (2017) as the advocacy organisation for promoting child welfare in the target community, one will be able to attain impressive success. The identified organisation provides extensive information about the issue of child abuse and CP as the possible factor triggering the phenomenon of CP in modern society. Thus, the organisation encourages people to recognise the irrefutable rights of children, including the right to maintain dignity and be treated with respect.
Reference List
Australian Association of Social Workers 2010, Code of ethics, Kingston, AASW.
Australian Childhood Foundation 2017, Research and advocacy. Web.
Braun, V, Clarke, V & Terry, G 2015, ‘Thematic analysis’, in P Rohleder & AC Lyons (eds), Qualitative research in clinical and health psychology, Monash University Library, Caulfield East, Australia, pp. 95-113.
Creswell, J 2014, Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Flynn, C & McDermott, F 2016, Doing research in social work and social care: the journey from student to practitioner researcher, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Magliacani, M 2014, Managing cultural heritage: ecomuseums, community governance, social accountability, Springer, New York, NY.
Morton, S, Phipps, D & Nutley, S 2012, ‘Using research to influence family services and policies: issues and challenges’, The Policy Press, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 243-253.