Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 17, 2024, 08:18:39 AM
-
Quite right too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68827782
-
I disagree. I don't think that criminalising parents for a smack is in a child's or a parent's best interests. A criminal record could get a parent fired from their job, which would presumably leave them unable to pay their rent / mortgage - child and parents could end up homeless. Ideally parents would not smack kids, but I think in the real world it's better for the kid to put up with a few smacks that don't leave a mark than end up homeless because their parents lose their means of income over a smack by ending up with a criminal record.
Plus children lie and they are too immature to appreciate the consequences of their lies and they are not held accountable under the law for wasting police time or getting the victims of their lies into legal difficulties. It is very expensive to legally defend yourself against a child's lies and you could lose your job while you are being investigated, which could go on for months - if the parent denies it, it would be a child's word against a parent's unless there is an actual 3rd party witness who saw the actual smack. And i doubt the police have the resources to investigate smacks that don't leave a mark.
If a kid wants to accuse their parents of injuring them, I would not be ok with criminalising a parent without some actual evidence - bruises or injury of some kind. Failing any sign of injury, probably better to send the child and parent to family therapy and have the state fund that rather than the state paying for police time and legal costs and legal aid. If therapy does not resolve the situation and the child is still making accusations and wants the parent punished, maybe the child would prefer social services to intervene and take the child into care.
The article says a review of studies by RCPCH found smacking can be damaging to children's behaviour, health and wellbeing. Would have to read up on what they mean by "can be".
It also says children who are smacked are "three times more likely to develop poor mental health and twice as likely to be on the receiving end of serious physical assault and abuse." From the wording I am unclear from their wording if the RCPCH thinks smacking equates to hurting a child and is a form of child abuse - I would want to know what the RCPCH considers as abuse here. I am also unclear what they mean by "three times more likely...and twice as likely" - what does that mean in percentages or actual numbers?
On another note, children are supposed to be learning to become adults living in a stressful world. Children feeling a bit sad, upset, hurt, scared, rejected etc is part of that learning process of becoming an adult - what's wrong with feeling those emotions so long as a child is not experiencing them excessively to the extent they can't function or are physically injured - and there are already rules to say a smack should not leave a mark?
-
My take is that hitting small people is no different to hitting large people: it is assault in both cases, and is arguably worse when an adult assaults a child.
It's not my idea of good parenting, hence I've never lifted my hands no matter how annoying or provocatively the kids behaved (and now grandkids, who permanently live with us) - not because I'm any kind of saint, but because I think that if I did then I would be behaving badly and would be compromising my own personal standards.
It has been illegal here in Scotland since November 2020, and as far as I'm aware it isn't contentious.
-
My take is that hitting small people is no different to hitting large people: it is assault in both cases, and is arguably worse when an adult assaults a child.
It's not my idea of good parenting, hence I've never lifted my hands no matter how annoying or provocatively the kids behaved (and now grandkids, who permanently live with us) - not because I'm any kind of saint, but because I think that if I did then I would be behaving badly and would be compromising my own personal standards.
It has been illegal here in Scotland since November 2020, and as far as I'm aware it isn't contentious.
What he said, all of it.
-
My take is that hitting small people is no different to hitting large people: it is assault in both cases, and is arguably worse when an adult assaults a child.
Sure, that's one argument. I would not equate treatment of a child with that of an adult for practical reasons. On average, an adult's impulse control and decision-making is different from a child's because their brain has developed. The consequences of poor decision-making are different for an adult and a child. I can leave an adult and walk away and I am not responsible for another adult's behaviour or safety. You can't walk away from your kids and you are held responsible for their behaviour and safety until they become adults - so the law sees the relationship dynamics differently between small people and large people. Having said that, I think it's better to be able to control behaviour with methods other than smacking but I am not convinced of the benefit of criminalising smacking.
It's not my idea of good parenting, hence I've never lifted my hands no matter how annoying or provocatively the kids behaved (and now grandkids, who permanently live with us) - not because I'm any kind of saint, but because I think that if I did then I would be behaving badly and would be compromising my own personal standards.
It sounds like different people would define good parenting in different ways - it's subjective. On one extreme, if you are trying to train children to be fighters and defend their country, then raising them like the Spartans did (of course that's a really extreme example) could be considered "good parenting". Without an objective definition of "good" I presume then it is up to the prevailing culture of a particular society i.e. up to people to collectively decide the expected standards for good parenting in that particular society, based on what the majority think should be the objectives of parenting.
I would need to see evidence of the poorer outcomes in society from children being smacked, and if it is causation or correlation, and why those outcomes are considered poorer.
It has been illegal here in Scotland since November 2020, and as far as I'm aware it isn't contentious.
I could not find any information on prosecutions for smacking in Scotland since 2020. Were there any? New Zealand apparently banned smacking in 2007, and there does not seem to have been a significant increase of prosecutions for smacking so maybe the issue I raised about increased criminalisation and its impact on family well-being is not relevant. Don't know if NZ has a more homogenous culture than England?
-
Sure, that's one argument. I would not equate treatment of a child with that of an adult for practical reasons. On average, an adult's impulse control and decision-making is different from a child's because their brain has developed. The consequences of poor decision-making are different for an adult and a child. I can leave an adult and walk away and I am not responsible for another adult's behaviour or safety. You can't walk away from your kids and you are held responsible for their behaviour and safety until they become adults - so the law sees the relationship dynamics differently between small people and large people. Having said that, I think it's better to be able to control behaviour with methods other than smacking but I am not convinced of the benefit of criminalising smacking.
It sounds like different people would define good parenting in different ways - it's subjective. On one extreme, if you are trying to train children to be fighters and defend their country, then raising them like the Spartans did (of course that's a really extreme example) could be considered "good parenting". Without an objective definition of "good" I presume then it is up to the prevailing culture of a particular society i.e. up to people to collectively decide the expected standards for good parenting in that particular society, based on what the majority think should be the objectives of parenting.
I would need to see evidence of the poorer outcomes in society from children being smacked, and if it is causation or correlation, and why those outcomes are considered poorer.
I could not find any information on prosecutions for smacking in Scotland since 2020. Were there any? New Zealand apparently banned smacking in 2007, and there does not seem to have been a significant increase of prosecutions for smacking so maybe the issue I raised about increased criminalisation and its impact on family well-being is not relevant. Don't know if NZ has a more homogenous culture than England?
I don't think hitting children can form part of an ethical experiment.
-
Gabriella
For me, and that is of course subjective, the idea that I would physically assault a child in my care so as to cause them pain and distress is simply unacceptable and would reflect poorly on my personal character. I can't think of any of the many situations over the years where the behaviour of one of my kids/grandkids would justify me hitting them: I recognise that they are immature and are a 'work in progress'. I accept that sometimes sanctions are appropriate to discourage problem behaviour but, for me anyway, that should never extend to physical violence.
I would hope to be able to manage my own frustrations and/or challenging behaviour from children, whose welfare and happiness I am responsible for, without recourse to assaulting them. Moreover, I can't see that relations between responsible adults and dependent children are in any sense enhanced by episodes of physical violence during what are mostly, in my experience anyway, relatively trivial situations.
I'm not aware of any prosecutions here in Scotland.
-
I don't think hitting children can form part of an ethical experiment.
Not sure I follow. Humans spend a lot of time revising their ethical positions on many things through testing and evaluating outcomes. Why not this, on the basis that I am not convinced that it is particularly painful or traumatic to be smacked when you are a young child. I guess it depends on how different people define trauma.
Sure, if you can get your child to behave or follow rules without smacking them you are doing better than someone using the cruder technique of smacking. But not really seeing the point of criminalising it.
My life experience is being caned occasionally and smacked as a child. It wasn't pleasant but not sure I would describe it as traumatic. I don't remember the physical pain or the feeling of fear before I got caned or slapped, although I know I did feel scared but within a couple of days I just shrugged off any resentment about it as there was usually something more fun and enjoyable to occupy my thoughts.
I do still remember the feeling of emotional pain the only time my mother did not speak to me for about 2 days when I was about 14 as a punishment, until I apologised for something I said. She didn't have to speak to me as I was old enough to be relatively self-sufficient and could be left unsupervised and ignored. She still carried on making me food - there was just no conversation. So that was an effective technique when I was too old for her to slap me.
-
Gabriella
For me, and that is of course subjective, the idea that I would physically assault a child in my care so as to cause them pain and distress is simply unacceptable and would reflect poorly on my personal character. I can't think of any of the many situations over the years where the behaviour of one of my kids/grandkids would justify me hitting them: I recognise that they are immature and are a 'work in progress'. I accept that sometimes sanctions are appropriate to discourage problem behaviour but, for me anyway, that should never extend to physical violence.
Understood. I wouldn't seek to convince someone to smack their kids.
I would hope to be able to manage my own frustrations and/or challenging behaviour from children, whose welfare and happiness I am responsible for, without recourse to assaulting them.
Fair enough - I can't disagree with taking that approach or adopting that personal standard. I come from a culture where physically disciplining children is fairly acceptable, so the children who experienced it, like myself, do not automatically have a particularly negative view of that experience, provided it wasn't excessive (subjective I know) and provided you actually like your parents. I'm not saying it was a positive experience either, other than it meant when I started kick-boxing as an adult, I less afraid of getting hit compared to some of my fellow kick-boxers. It's an experience that many of us as adults joke about now, almost like a rite of passage that we shared as children and can relate to, so presumably we don't remember any great trauma.
Obviously I don't know how I would be different as a person now if my parents hadn't hit me as a child. Presumably it did change me but can't say that it was a change for the better or worse as I have nothing to compare it to. It worked in discouraging certain behaviours where reasoning, explanations, raising their voice, and other punishments did not. Fear of a caning curbed the attraction of the forbidden. No matter how badly 7 year old me really wanted to do what had been forbidden, fear of the cane usually over-rode my poor impulse control, and focused my mind to carry out a quick cost-benefit analysis and likelihood of getting busted. And I can see it from my parents' perspective - they had busy lives as well as full-time jobs so they would cut us (my brother and me) some slack because they didn't have time to monitor everything we were up to, but when they really needed us to follow instructions instead of mucking about, physical threats worked on us because we knew they might follow-through and we remembered the consequences of crossing the line.
Moreover, I can't see that relations between responsible adults and dependent children are in any sense enhanced by episodes of physical violence during what are mostly, in my experience anyway, relatively trivial situations.
No I can't see relations being enhanced by physical violence / chastisement even if it is not forceful enough to leave a mark. Neither do I see all smacks as automatically so harmful that all smacks need to be criminalised though.
I'm not aware of any prosecutions here in Scotland.
Noted
-
I think physical discipline is observed in mammals is it not?
-
I think physical discipline is observed in mammals is it not?
Your point?
-
Gabriella
I find that the idea of using a cane to administer physical violence to a child is abhorrent: after all it's a weapon, and as such the level of pain and distress it could cause, compared to a 'smack' is unthinkable to me, albeit I also find the 'smack' approach just as abhorrent.
If any child I was responsible for ever felt frightened of me because I might deliberately cause them physical pain then I would feel I was a failure as a parent/grandparent. I can't see that fear could have any positive role in my relationships with the two of my younger grandchildren who are a permanent part of our household (ages 10 and 7).
-
Not sure I follow. Humans spend a lot of time revising their ethical positions on many things through testing and evaluating outcomes. Why not this, on the basis that I am not convinced that it is particularly painful or traumatic to be smacked when you are a young child. I guess it depends on how different people define trauma.
Sure, if you can get your child to behave or follow rules without smacking them you are doing better than someone using the cruder technique of smacking. But not really seeing the point of criminalising it.
...
Yes, humans test things but experimentation uses ethics as well. I take it you aren't suggesting that all experimentation should be allowed?
You seem to be happy that assault on adults is criminalised, why wouldn't you extend that protection to children?
-
Yes, humans test things but experimentation uses ethics as well. I take it you aren't suggesting that all experimentation should be allowed?
No, not suggesting all experimentation, as yes there are ethics about the amount of suffering permitted.
You seem to be happy that assault on adults is criminalised, why wouldn't you extend that protection to children?
Couple of reasons I can think of for now:
1) As a response to poor adult behaviour I usually have the option of walking away whereas the law forbids me from leaving a child of a certain age unsupervised
2) If an adult wants to do something stupid or dangerous or annoying, I am unlikely to be held legally/ morally responsible for that adult's behaviour - they will be held accountable for their own behaviour and I can just not get involved and let the consequences take their course. Whereas I would be held legally / morally responsible for my child's behaviour and would probably have to deal with the consequences of the child's choices so I would differentiate a child from an adult on that basis and not extend the same protection from assault to a child. Yes, it's better to not assault your children, but I would not criminalise it, depending on the degree of assault.
-
Gabriella
I find that the idea of using a cane to administer physical violence to a child is abhorrent: after all it's a weapon, and as such the level of pain and distress it could cause, compared to a 'smack' is unthinkable to me, albeit I also find the 'smack' approach just as abhorrent.
If any child I was responsible for ever felt frightened of me because I might deliberately cause them physical pain then I would feel I was a failure as a parent/grandparent. I can't see that fear could have any positive role in my relationships with the two of my younger grandchildren who are a permanent part of our household (ages 10 and 7).
I don't agree with parents caning their children now either - it was a different time when I was caned - but I don't find it abhorrent. Probably because I didn't find it particularly bad experiencing being caned, which was probably up until the age of 11 maybe - a few thin welts on my legs. There was a cane upstairs and one downstairs and my brother and I used to play with the canes - tie string to them and pretend they were bows.
I don't feel the same way as you about children being scared of me - I want them to be afraid of me if they know they are doing something they should not be, but also to have fun with me.
I think fear and testing these boundaries as a child was a way of for me to develop my appetite for risk and becoming more resilient to pain, and feeling less afraid of consequences. My parents stopped hitting me when I became more independent and self-sufficient as it didn't work as a consequence.
-
No, not suggesting all experimentation, as yes there are ethics about the amount of suffering permitted.
Couple of reasons I can think of for now:
1) As a response to poor adult behaviour I usually have the option of walking away whereas the law forbids me from leaving a child of a certain age unsupervised
2) If an adult wants to do something stupid or dangerous or annoying, I am unlikely to be held legally/ morally responsible for that adult's behaviour - they will be held accountable for their own behaviour and I can just not get involved and let the consequences take their course. Whereas I would be held legally / morally responsible for my child's behaviour and would probably have to deal with the consequences of the child's choices so I would differentiate a child from an adult on that basis and not extend the same protection from assault to a child. Yes, it's better to not assault your children, but I would not criminalise it, depending on the degree of assault.
Those don't seem to be reasons for allowing children to be assaulted as opposed to adults. They are descriptions of differences in relationships.
To look at it another way, if an adult has a condition that means they would on some ways be treated as a child, by your logic you think it would be OK to assault them?
-
Those don't seem to be reasons for allowing children to be assaulted as opposed to adults. They are descriptions of differences in relationships.
To look at it another way, if an adult has a condition that means they would on some ways be treated as a child, by your logic you think it would be OK to assault them?
You could differentiate a brain development medical condition in an adult from normal child development stages of poor impulse control, inability to asses risk and reason etc. I would differentiate on the basis that a child is being trained to develop into an adult but is not an adult yet so does not have the same rights and privileges as an adult. I agree it is arbitrary to decide that people are treated differently based on age.
I also don't think hitting an adult would work - you would have to hit an adult pretty hard for it to hurt sufficiently to be a negative consequence for them. It would just be a symbolic gesture to hit an adult.
-
You could differentiate a brain development medical condition in an adult from normal child development stages of poor impulse control, inability to asses risk and reason etc. I would differentiate on the basis that a child is being trained to develop into an adult but is not an adult yet so does not have the same rights and privileges as an adult. I agree it is arbitrary to decide that people are treated differently based on age.
I also don't think hitting an adult would work - you would have to hit an adult pretty hard for it to hurt sufficiently to be a negative consequence for them. It would just be a symbolic gesture to hit an adult.
So in the assaults you want to allow on children, it has to hurt but not too much, and it has to be judged long after the hitting by a legal system as to whether or not it was to too much.
-
So in the assaults you want to allow on children, it has to hurt but not too much, and it has to be judged long after the hitting by a legal system as to whether or not it was to too much.
Yes I would agree with that. If it was bad enough to leave a visible bruise/ mark (not sure what the current criteria is) it was too much. Otherwise, I personally don't see a need to criminalise an assault on a child. Most things in the legal system have to be judged long after an event took place - it's an imperfect system.
-
Yes I would agree with that. If it was bad enough to leave a visible bruise/ mark (not sure what the current criteria is) it was too much. Otherwise, I personally don't see a need to criminalise an assault on a child. Most things in the legal system have to be judged long after an event took place - it's an imperfect system.
And to be clear, you are allowing assaults on those who would have the most difficulty using the legal system as a post assault recourse, and who are in relationships where there is an imbalance of power to start with.
-
My take is that hitting small people is no different to hitting large people: it is assault in both cases, and is arguably worse when an adult assaults a child.
Quite right - if we will not tolerate physical assaults on adults why on earth would we tolerate them on children, who are necessarily vulnerable in a way that most adults aren't.
-
On another note, children are supposed to be learning to become adults living in a stressful world.
Just picking up on this single point.
But in the adult world physical assault is unlawful, so how on earth is allowing a child to be subjected to physical assault as a child helping them learn what life is like as an adult, where that very act would be an offence.
What it teaches children is that physical violence is acceptable.
-
I was smacked as a child. Not severely, within the bounds of what was normal then. As far as I'm aware, it did me no irreparable damage. Nevertheless, I thought it pointless then and I still do now. I never learned anything from it. It's good that it's frowned upon these days and it should be against the law. There are better ways of disciplining children.
-
Physical discipline is observed in the natural world in mammals I believe.
-
Physical discipline is observed in the natural world in mammals I believe.
You posted something very similar this morning. I asked what was your point. So I repeat, what's your point?
-
And to be clear, you are allowing assaults on those who would have the most difficulty using the legal system as a post assault recourse, and who are in relationships where there is an imbalance of power to start with.
Yes of course. I think it should be difficult for a child to use the legal system for recourse after getting slapped / assaulted unless it was beyond reasonable chastisement.
The imbalance of power is essential in a parent-child relationship IMO, provided it's not the child who wields more power than the parent, and provided the parent does not abuse their power by going beyond reasonable chastisement.
Children can't handle power - usually their brains are too under-developed and they don't have life experience compared to most adults. Someone in the parent-child relationship has to make decisions, and I would say that someone is the person who could be held legally accountable for decisions made - so the adult. Of course there are exceptions where I feel the law should step in but not for a slap IMO.
-
Yes of course. I think it should be difficult for a child to use the legal system for recourse after getting slapped / assaulted unless it was beyond reasonable chastisement.
The imbalance of power is essential in a parent-child relationship IMO, provided it's not the child who wields more power than the parent, and provided the parent does not abuse their power by going beyond reasonable chastisement.
Children can't handle power - usually their brains are too under-developed and they don't have life experience compared to most adults. Someone in the parent-child relationship has to make decisions, and I would say that someone is the person who could be held legally accountable for decisions made - so the adult. Of course there are exceptions where I feel the law should step in but not for a slap IMO.
The power relationship and the problems any child might have using the legal system though make it harder for any determination of what you regard as 'reasonable chastisement'. In your support of assaulting children, you are loading the dice any chance of establishing protection
-
The power relationship and the problems any child might have using the legal system though make it harder for any determination of what you regard as 'reasonable chastisement'. In your support of assaulting children, you are loading the dice any chance of establishing protection
Possibly but nevertheless I think assaulting children is reasonable depending on the circumstances, as I am not convinced they need protecting from a slap.
As I said, the legal system is imperfect so social services or family therapy might be more beneficial to the family and in the child's best interests, rather than criminalising parents for a slap.
-
Possibly but nevertheless I think assaulting children is reasonable depending on the circumstances, as I am not convinced they need protecting from a slap.
As I said, the legal system is imperfect so social services or family therapy might be more beneficial to the family and in the child's best interests, rather than criminalising parents for a slap.
Which also are harder for a child to access. Also I think you are creating a false dichotomy in that criminalising behaviour does not mean a prosecution in all cases.
-
Which also are harder for a child to access. Also I think you are creating a false dichotomy in that criminalising behaviour does not mean a prosecution in all cases.
I don't know how this works in practice. Who makes the decision whether to prosecute or not in Scotland? How do they decide that a slap of a child does not require prosecution?
-
You posted something very similar this morning. I asked what was your point. So I repeat, what's your point?
1: WHY is it not being discussed since natural behaviour in the context of human behaviour has been discussed before.
-
1: WHY is it not being discussed since natural behaviour in the context of human behaviour has been discussed before.
Eh? Could you provide some context because still not seeing your point?