Logically, morally, humanely and scientifically, the debate on spanking is dead
10 Saturday Sep 2011
Posted by Michael Goldfield in Child Abuse
IN PUBLIC FORUMS on the internet, we have lively debates over whether Hitler was a hero or whether or not the holocaust ever occurred. We could also probably find a debate over whether slavery ever existed in the United States. We might even get an argument that the Earth is flat and always has been. And, given what has also yet to become common knowledge, we can still find arguments in favor of hitting young children as a form of punishment.
For example, those who developed through their formative years having adopted as a part of their belief system that adults hit children as an acceptable practice will take on this treatment of children as a belief not dissimilar to the religious beliefs they’ve adopted during this same stage of development. And, these are beliefs that tend to become deeply ingrained.
Those who happen to overcome and evolve beyond such irrational belief systems seem to be the exception to the rule. Sadly, it would seem that few children are able to avoid early childhood brainwashing to a particular religion or orientation. Typically, our little ones will buy into what we feed them lock, stock and barrel.
Herein lies the problem of change in the face of overwhelming evidence. Let’s liken this change to telling a grown man that his name is actually Archibald instead of Joe. Lot’s of luck. It’s going to take awhile, no doubt, and repeated efforts are in order.
So, once again, let’s try driving home the facts that carry with them the hope of breaking through just a few more of those bigoted obstacles still standing in the way of social progress.
To begin with, I feel it’s most important to make it very clearly known to any and all concerned that the debate on spanking within the scientific and academic communities is dead and has been for a number of years. The most substantial indicator of this development is evidenced by the fact that virtually every professional organization in the U.S. and Canada concerned with the care and treatment of children has taken a public stance against the practice of spanking.
Based on the overwhelming accumulation of research conducted over the past 50 plus years linking spanking to a number of risk factors, the professional consensus against this practice has grown to world-wide proportions … even to the extent that Sweden, Finland, Austria, Norway, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Iceland, Romania, Greece, New Zealand, Venezuela, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Uruguay, and Ukraine have all legislated total bans on spanking … with Italy, South Africa, Scotland, Canada, and Ireland apparently in the process of following suit. It should also be noted that every industrialized country in the world has banned spanking in schools. The evidence is in, and the evidence has found against the practice of spanking in a compellingly conclusive manner.
Just as one might find supportive views toward spanking being promoted (typically) on web sites sponsored by fundamentalist Christian sects, so can one find supportive views promoting Homophobia, Racism, Misogyny, and other “hate group” propaganda. Because the actual agendas of these sites are often deceptively disguised by organizational titles such as “Family Council”, “People’s Choice”, “Rights and Freedoms”, etc., people are forced to exercise a highly judicious discernment of the information being made available on the Internet. Some web surfers have had to learn the hard way that the Internet abounds with persuasive presentations of “facts and figures” that can prove to represent nothing more than religious, political, or philosophical attempts to spread self-serving misinformation.
Having spent over 30 years examining and evaluating the research on spanking children, I am able to state with a high degree of confidence that there has never been a peer-reviewed study that has been able to establish the efficacy of spanking as a means of long-term behavior modification; as an effective teaching modality; as an effective punishment or as a means of instilling self-discipline. Nor has there been published research findings in peer-reviewed professional journals that served to refute previous research. This previous research found spanking to be associated with a risk for undesirable emotional consequences; a risk for physical injury; a risk of counter-productive behavioral outcomes; a risk for the onset of dependence on external controls and a proclivity toward authority-directed behavior. Moreover, there has never been research data finding that spanking carries no risk to the quality of the parent-child relationship (and I should add that conservative editorial reviews of previous research findings do not constitute actual research, as is sometimes claimed to be the case).
Nevertheless, there are some spankers who will find reasons to dismiss, ignore, or discount the research findings of field conducted experimental studies related to the Social Sciences. It is especially these folks that I’d like to address concerning alarming new research findings which represent the most severe consequences of physical punishment yet discovered … while doing so in the form of documented scientific proof.*
These revelations have come through studies in brain research having provided Cat Scan images showing an abnormal lack of brain development (within the portion of the brain responsible for emotional functioning) in children who had been subject to spankings as a punitive measure. For the sake of sample homogeneity, the researchers chose subjects for their study that had been categorized as “abused” children. Common sense tells us that this does not eliminate the possibility of a lesser degree of brain damage occurring to spanked children who are subjected to a lesser degree of non-injurious violence. In other words, it would be ludicrous to assume that a child must first suffer bruises, cuts, or welts (or other injuries), before brain damage can take place as a result of the physical punishments. Rather, it is much more logical to deduce that acts of physical aggression toward young children can disrupt or prevent the optimal conditions necessary to facilitate a normal process of healthy brain development.
As far as I’m concerned, this new area of research (apparently not yet freely available on the Internet) represents the most compelling, undeniable reason that has yet been discovered to persuade parents to stop (or never start) striking their children as a punitive measure. And I hope any pro-spankers reading this feel the same way. It’s difficult to imagine any parent who would be willing to treat their child in a way that might carry even a remote risk of causing a measure of brain damage to their child.
In spite of having said all of that, we should not need research to end the practice of striking children any more than we needed research to end the practice of striking wives. As a society, there was no need for research findings to convince us of the harmful effects associated with the practice of wives being physically punished.
Instead, when society reached the point of being no longer willing to grant social tolerance to the tradition of husbands physically disciplining their wives, our decision to do so was based on our having progressed socially into the higher morality of a greater humanity. Perhaps, the next step in forward progress should come by way of reaching a decision to begin recognizing children as also being deserving of those same protections against being struck.
No longer do we see any adult members of our society remaining outside the jurisdiction of the protective laws once enjoyed by only the more privileged and “deserving” (namely white males who made the laws), regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnic group or sexual orientation. None of our adult citizens remain legally unprotected from being violated through harassment, threats, defamation, discrimination or being victimized by violence to any degree or form. So, given our heritage of bestowing a greater humanity upon those of a lower social status by welcoming them as our equals in the eyes of the law (in terms of violent treatment), would it be so out of character for us to also shelter the younger, weaker members of our society by allowing them to join those of us already sharing in the security and comfort of safety that is provided under the umbrella of legal protections from violence?
Bringing our little ones into the fold really doesn’t seem all that magnanimous if we keep in mind that we’ve already been willing to share the shelter of our umbrella of assault laws with even the most vicious of hardened adult criminals. After all, children are the very last segment of our shared human collective who still remain as fair game for being subjected to acts of physical aggression. We display a strange sense of priorities when we don’t allow the prison guard to break-out a paddle and start whacking away on the disobedient buttocks of a sociopathic death-row inmate who kills for the rush it gives him, yet we find helpless, defenseless young children deserving of such treatment.
We characterize corporal punishments of prison inmates as Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Guard Brutality and Aggravated Assault. And, should the physical punishments be repeated as a routine punitive measure, such treatment of prisoners would fall under the definition of torture.
Why would a murderous inmate be less subject to physical discipline than a helpless 3-year-old child?
Logically, morally, humanely and scientifically, the debate on spanking is dead … save for those who would object to further social progress.
As we evolve as a society, we have to keep in mind that historically there was a time when it was acceptable to legally own other people; a time when the mentally ill were generally considered to be possessed by evil spirits; a time when men legally shot each other in officiated duels; a time when public hangings were attended as a family outing complete with picnic basket; a time when public floggings were considered acceptable punishment; a time when it was a gentleman’s agreement that husbands should not beat their wives with a switch that was ‘bigger-round than your thumb’ (which later became known as ‘the rule of thumb’); and there was a time when there were no laws against parents severely beating their children (killing children was unacceptable, of course, but an occasional accidental maiming as a result of disciplinary measures was tolerated).
Obviously, we no longer permit these punishments. The time has come for us to further our level of social sophistication by coming to a general agreement that any degree of physical punishment used against children is as socially unacceptable and repugnant as those past violent behaviors we have chosen to put behind us.
by James C. Talbot
Author of The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent’s Guide
Visit www.positivedisciplining.com
Post navigation
2 thoughts on “The Debate on Spanking is Dead”
-
A powerful and compelling essay. I forwarded to all my social nets. They know by now how I feel about this issue and I have tried many times to express your ideas, but my prose comes nowhere near yours, James.
♣ Subscribe
♣ Archives
♣ Categories
♣ Meta
A CONSTITUTIONAL BIRTHRIGHT: THE STATE, PARENTAGE, AND THE RIGHTS OF NEWBORN PERSONS
http://uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-4-1.pdf
James G. Dwyer, Family law professor, William and Mary
Abstract
State parentage laws, dictating who a newborn child’s first legal parents will be, have been the subject of constitutional challenges in several U.S. Supreme Court and many lower court decisions. All of those decisions, however, have focused on constitutional rights of adults (especially unwed biological fathers) who wish to become, or to avoid becoming, legal parents. Neither courts nor legal scholars have considered whether the children have any constitutional rights that constrain legislatures and courts in deciding which adults will be their legal parents. If a state enacted a parentage law that said, for example, that any child born to a birth mother who already had two children would be placed in a parent-child relationship at birth with applicants for adoption rather than with the birth mother, would that infringe on any constitutional right of the child? Or would the birth mother be the only person with standing to challenge the law? Such a law would be purely hypothetical in the U.S. (though not far from reality in some other parts of the world). But the actual current parentage laws in the United States, which confer legal parent status in almost all instances on biological parents, with no regard for fitness, also have a seriously adverse affect on a subset of children—specifically, children whose birth parents are manifestly unfit to raise children, as evidenced by serious child maltreatment histories, criminal records, substance abuse, mental illness, and/or imprisonment. This Article is the first to consider whether states violate a constitutional right of some children when their parentage laws consign the children to legal relationships with, and into the custody of, adults whom the state knows to be unfit. It identifies opportunities for children’s advocates to advance constitutional challenges to state parentage laws as applied to newborn offspring of adults unfit to parent, and it presents a robust legal theory to underwrite such challenges.
Constitutional Birthright
A significant percentage of children are born to birth parents who are unfit to raise children—evidenced by histories of serious child abuse, violent felonies, mental illness, and/or chronic substance abuse—and who are highly unlikely to become fit within a reasonable period after their offspring’s birth.
Congress has, in the past dozen years, pushed states to be more proactive in protecting these babies from maltreatment by conditioning certain federal grants on states making various changes to their child protection laws. In particular, Congress has pushed states to terminate parental rights immediately, without first undertaking extensive rehabilitation efforts, in the worst cases of birth parent unfitness, so that the babies can enter good adoptive homes. However, state legislatures have not enacted all the statutory provisions necessary to accomplish this aim, and the state institutions charged with administering child protection laws—namely, child protection agencies and juvenile courts—are highly resistant to terminating parental rights before children incur serious maltreatment and/or prolonged foster care stays. In addition, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,4 which rejected on state action grounds a constitutional tort suit against a negligent child protection agency, there is no constitutional lever to force child protection agencies to act more aggressively, pursuant to child maltreatment laws, to protect newborns at high risk of maltreatment. In short, the problem of protecting babies born to grossly unfit parents appears intractable.
What legal advocates for children and legal scholars have overlooked, however, is the potential for attacking the problem further upstream, by advancing a constitutional challenge not to child protection laws or agency inaction, but to parentage statutes. Enactment and enforcement of state statutes conferring legal parent status on biological parents without regard to fitness, thereby forcing a substantial number of newborn babies to be in intimate associations with people the state knows to be unfit to parent, clearly constitutes state action and is the root cause of great harm to these children. Newborn babies must have a constitutional right against state legislatures placing them into legal family relationships with adults whom the state knows (by virtue of state child abuse and criminal registries, reports of fetal drug exposure, and prison records) to be dangerous to them.
In fact, much legal scholarship and judicial decision making has been devoted to the constitutionality of parentage laws. But almost all of it has focused on the constitutional rights of adults: either adults who want to be legal parents but are denied the opportunity, or adults who do not want to be legal parents yet have that status thrust upon them.5 What little consideration there has been of children’s constitutional rights in connection with parentage has been limited to older children who seek but are denied legal protection for an already established and healthy social parent-child relationship that they have with an adult who is not a legal parent.6 There has been no consideration of whether newborn children have any constitutional rights in connection with this legal action that largely determines the fundamental quality of their entire lives, including a right to avoid a legal parent-child relationship that is very bad for them, leaving them free to enter into a legal relationship with adults who would be good caregivers. This Article is the first to do so.
Related articles
- “Family” group sacrifices child security on the altar of anti-gay animus (pinkbananaworld.com)
Help ban corporal punishment in our schools

- Image via Wikipedia
U.S. House Education and Labor Subcommittee to Hear Bill on April 15th Banning School Paddling
On April l5th, a subcommittee of the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee will begin hearings on banning school corporal punishment. Please write committee members immediately to ask for support for a bill banning school corporal punishment being introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy in the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities. The measure would link corporal punishment bans to federal funding and, if successful, would probably be added to the ESEA (formerly “Leave No Child Behind”) reauthorization measure.
Act Today:
(1) Write Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Subcommittee Chair, Ranking Member Representative Todd “Russell” Platts and committee members. Thank Representative McCarthy for sponsoring the bill, ask all subcommittee members to support a ban on school corporal punishment and tell them why it should be banned. See arguments and contact information below. Ask the Chair and Ranking Member to copy all committee members on your letter or write them individually.
(2) If you live in a state with a Representative on the committee, it is important that you email that person and ask for support for a ban.
Contact Information:
Honorable Carolyn McCarthy
2346 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5516
Fax: (202) 225-5758
Constituent Email: http://forms.house.gov/mccarthy/contact.shtml D-NY 4th District
Honorable Todd Platts
2455 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5836
Fax: (202) 226-1000
Constituent Email: http://www.house.gov/platts/email.shtml R-PA l9th District
Representative George Miller, the House Education and Labor Committee Chair, is a member of the subcommittee hearing the bill. His email accepts messages from all states, not just his constituents:
Honorable George Miller
2205 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
phone:202-225-2095
fax:202-225-560905 Rayburn House Office Building
georgemiller.house.gov/contactus/2007/08/post_1.html
Contact information for committee members:
Please be sure to contact members from your state. If you do not know your district, please go to www.congress.org. Type in your zip code under “get involved.”
U.S. House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities Contact Information (email for constituents). Open hyperlink or copy/paste in your browser.
You can also go to these sites to find regular office mail addresses:
Republicans:
Honorable Russell Platts
http://www.house.gov/platts/email.shtml R-PA l9th District
Honorable Buck McKeon
http://mckeon.house.gov/lets_talk.shtml R-CA 25th District
Honorable Brett Guthrie
http://guthrie.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=117§iontree=4,117 R-KY 02 District
Honorable David P. Roe
https://forms.house.gov/roe/webforms/contact.html R-TN 01 District
Honorable Glen “GT” Thomson
https://forms.house.gov/thompson/contact-form.shtml R-PA 5th District
Democrats
Honorable Carolyn McCarthy, Chairwoman
Constituent Email: http://forms.house.gov/mccarthy/contact.shtml D-NY 4th District
Honorable George Miller
http://georgemiller.house.gov/contactus/2007/08/post_1.html (D CA-07)
Honorable Yvette Clarke
http://clarke.house.gov/contact/contact-us-form.shtml (D NY-11)
Honorable Bobby Scott
http://www.bobbyscott.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=272&Itemid=60 (D VA-03)
Honorable Carol Shea-Porter
http://forms.house.gov/shea-porter/webform/issue_subscribe.htm (D NH -01)
Honorable Paul Tonko
http://tonko.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=3§iontree=3 (D-NY-21)
Honorable Jared Polis
http://polis.house.gv/Contact/ ( D CO-02)
Honorable Judy Chu
http://chu.house.gov/contact/index.shtml (D CA-32)
Facts About and Arguments For Banning School Corporal Punishment:
In 2006-07, over 223,000 students were paddled in US schools, that’s over 1,200 paddlings a day. U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights Study: www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=statesbanning
Sources for the following information can be found at:
www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=atschool-main or under (laws)
www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=laws-main
* Corporal punishment is linked to poorer academic achievement.
* Physical injuries occur. Welts and bruises frequently occur as well as other injuries requiring medical treatment.
* Psychological injury may occur that adversely affects learning and attitudes toward teachers and others in authority.
* Litigation against school boards and educators because of paddling injuries is not uncommon.
* Corporal punishment teaches children that physical violence is an acceptable way to solve problems.
* Better alternatives exist.
* Corporal punishment is disproportionately used on poor children, children with disabilities, minorities and boys.
* States have already determined corporal punishment is harmful.
* In almost all states it is banned in childcare, foster care and institutions for children. It should be banned in schools too.
* More than 50 national organizations oppose the use of school corporal punishment. These include the National Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association.
* Over twenty African American leaders have signed a proclamation opposing it.
Corporal punishment is illegal in schools in over l00 countries in the world.
Related articles by Zemanta
- The numbers on corporal punishment: PDQuotient (cleveland.com)
- Spanking May Make a Child More Aggressive (nlm.nih.gov)
Online resources compiled by James C. Talbot

- Image via Wikipedia
For any parent’s who would wish to explore what has become a world wide consensus against spanking, you will find below a number of online resources from my book.
The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent’s Guide
Slapping and Spanking in Childhood and Its Association with Lifetime Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/gca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s29&SEARCHID=1041949468944_779&TITLEABSTRACT=Slapping+and+spanking+in+Childhood&JOURNALCODE=&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=1&RESULTFORMAT=&gca=161%2F7%2F805
Research on Corporal Punishment – Available Online
http://stoptherod.net/research.htm
Corporal Punishment – Empirical Studies
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP-Empirical.htm
The Research and Informed Expert Opinion
http://nospank.net./resrch.htm
Slapping and Spanking in Childhood and Its Association With Lifetime Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in a General Population
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805
States Should Ban Violence Against Children – United Nations Study
http://nospank.net/n-q33r.htm
Correlation Between High Rates of Corporal Punishment in Public Schools andSocial Pathologies
http://nospank.net./correlationstudy.htm
Experts – Spanking Harms Children, Especially Girls
http://nospank.net./women.htm
Spanking and Mental Illness
http://nospank.net./falk2.htm
The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/sxdangers.html
Spanking Can Be Sexual Abuse
http://www.nospank.net/101.htm
panking, Pain and Pleasure
http://www.nospank.net/r-ali.htm
American Academy of Pediatrics’ Position on Physical Punishment
http://nospank.net./aap4-c.htm
ChildAdvocate.org – Corporal Punishment Society’s Acceptable Violence Towards Children
http://www.childadvocate.org/1a_research.htm
What Does Research Say About the Effects of Physical Punishment on Children?
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7266a.html
The Neurobiology of Child Abuse
http://www.nospank.net/teicher2.htm
It’s Time to Change `The American Way of Discipline’ – Arthur Cherry, M.D.,FAAP,
http://nospank.net./aap5-a.htm
Why Do We Need Full Legal Reform to End All Corporal Punishment?
http://nospank.net./endallcp.htm
Physical Punishment of Children
http://nospank.net./shrc.htm
Corporal Punishment in Schools
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b106/2/343
Lowest Achieving Ohio Schools Quickest With The Paddle-Rights
http://nospank.net./ohio3.htm
Dr. Spock on Parenting (1989)–Excerpts
http://nospank.net./spock2.htm
The Center for Effective Discipline, Columbus, Ohio
http://www.stophitting.com/
End All Corporal Punishment of Children
http://www.neverhitachild.org/
Corporal Punishment and Trauma – Building Better Health
http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/corporal
Corporal Punishment of Children (Spanking)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm
Giving Guidance on Child Discipline
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7230/261
The Belt, Adrenalin, and Delinquency
http://www.nospank.net/welsh5.htm
Abused Tots Take On Abusive Parents Ways
http://www.nospank.net/tots.htm
Impact of Parenting Styles – Alfred Adler Institute of San Francisco
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/parentin.htm
Adult Consequences of Childhood Parenting Styles – Alfred Adler Institute
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/adult.htm
Ten Reasons Not to Hit Your Kids – The Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.com/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html
Guidance for Effective Discipline
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b101/4/723
Spanking Strikes Out
http://life.familyeducation.com/spanking/discipline/36133.html
Corporal Punishment
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/corporal_punishment.html
Force and Fear Have No Place in Education
http://nospank.net/einstein.htm
Physical Punishment and The Development of Aggressive and Violent Behavior – A Review, by Elizabeth Kandel
http://www.neverhitachild.org/areview.html
Let’s Outlaw Any Hitting of Children
http://www.nospank.net/lndsbrg3.htm
Hitting People Is Wrong – and Children Are People Too
http://www.neverhitachild.org/hitting1.html
The Institute for the Study of Anti-Social Behaviour in Youth – Highlights from the Latest Youth Update
http://www.iay.org/youth_update/abstracts_latest_issue.html#Maltreatment%20and%20its%20Impact%20on%20C
Why Do We Hurt Our Children – The Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.com/james_kimmel/punishment.html
Alternatives to Spanking
http://life.familyeducation.com/spanking/discipline/36135.html
Some Thoughts On Spanking – The Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.com/guest/don_fisher.html
Raising Kind Children
http://extension.missouri.edu/xplor/hesguide/humanrel/gh6126.htm
Why You Should Say `No’ to Corporal Punishment – It Doesn’t Work
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-96/05-2796/c02li081.htm
Spanking – An Idea Whose Time Has Gone
http://nospank.net/gurza.htm
Faut-il interdire la fessée? / Should Spanking Be Prohibited?
http://www.nospank.net/n-j48.htm
The Swedish Example
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/crowell-article.html
German Parliament Bans Use Of Corporal Punishment In
Child Rearing
http://nospank.net/deut.htm
Denmark Bans Spanking
http://www.neverhitachild.org/denmark1.html
Israeli High Court on Spanking
http://nospank.net/n-g02.htm
Jerusalem Supreme Court: Corporal Punishment of Children
Is Indefensible
http://nospank.net/israel.htm
Greece Outlaws Corporal Punishment in the Home
http://nospank.net/greece.htm
South Africa’s Constitutional Court Says `NO’ to Spankers in
Christian Schools
http://nospank.net/sacourt2.htm
Spanking of Toddlers to Be a Crime in Scotland
http://www.nospank.net/n-i48.htm
Bangladesh Observes Child Rights Week
http://www.nospank.net/n-f33.htm
BBC News – UK – Smacking Children `Does Not Work’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/252607.stm
Delhi School Kids To Be Spared The Rod
http://nospank.net/delhi.htm
Punjab Bans Corporal Punishment
http://nospank.net/pkstn.htm
No Smacking Rule For Children Under Three
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2001/09/161
Greece outlaws corporal punishment in the home
http://nospank.net/greece.htm
End All Corporal Punishment of Children
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/
Correlation Between Corporal Punishment and Social Pathologies
http://nospank.net/guthrow.htm
Paddling States v. Non-Paddling States: A National Academic Comparison
http://nospank.net/charles5.htm
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Call For Government Rethink On Hitting Children Following United Nations Report
http://nospank.net/n-j58.htm
Corporal Punishment of Children (Spanking): Introduction and Legality
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin2.htm
Kenyan Children Suffer Frequent Beatings by Teachers
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/09/09/kenya1654.htm
Dept of Health Issues Guidelines to British Parents on How to Smack TheirChildren
http://wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/smck-f02.shtml
Project NoSpank
http://nospank.net./main.htm
Spanking Articles at findarticles.com
http://findarticles.com/
End All Corporal Punishment of Children – States With Full Abolition
http://endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html
The Center for Effective Discipline
http://www.stophitting.com/
Parenting Tips
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/children/parents/behavior/368.html
Spanking – Ages 6 to 12 | ahealthyme.com
http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/spanking6to12
Family Resource Library Resources
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
A Good Whuppin’? Many Who Survived Childhood Spankings Now Endorse Them, Renewing Debate Over a Peculiar Institution.
http://www.childprotectionreform.org/policy/spanking/washpoststory.htm
Our Children Don’t Deserve to Be Beaten
http://nospank.net/lombardo.htm
Monadnock Area Psychotherapy and Spirituality Services
http://www.mapsnh.org/spanking.html
Family Issue Facts, Spanking, Bulletin 4357
http://www.umext.maine.edu/onlinepubs/htmpubs/4357.htm
United Nations Committee on Rights of Child
http://www.nospank.net/uncrc.htm
Corporal Punishment Society’s Acceptable Violence Towards Children
http://www.childadvocate.org/1a_research.htm
How Children Really React to Control
http://nospank.net/gordon.htm
Force and Fear Have No Place in Education
http://nospank.net/einstein.htm
Selected Print Medial Coverage
http://www.nospank.net/clips.htm
Let’s Outlaw Any Hitting of Children
http://www.nospank.net/lndsbrg3.htm
Domestic Abuse Organizational and Employee Impact
http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Mickles721.html
Plain Talk About Spanking
http://nospank.net/pt2007.htm
This valuable list for advocates who are working to ban violence against children was compiled by James Talbot author of The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent’s Guide .
Related articles by Zemanta
- Does Spanking Cause Lower IQs? (blisstree.com)
- New Zealand Votes On Law Against Smacking (news.sky.com)
- Why Kids Who Get Spanked Have Lower IQs (time.com)
- Is America Ready For A “Spanking Ban?” [Spare The Rod] (jezebel.com)
- Being a Patient Parent is a Virtue (momblognetwork.com)
- BILL S-207 and the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children (endhereditaryreligion.com)
Global progress towards banning all corporal punishment of children

- Image by HA! Designs – Artbyheather via Flickr
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/global.html
From End Corporal Punishment official web site. In the following text the hypertext links, italicized, are deactivated. Please visit the web site.
Legal reforms to prohibit all corporal punishment of children – in the family home as well as in schools and other institutions and penal systems – are spreading fast.
In many states the law provides defences for parents, other carers and teachers who use corporal punishment to discipline children: provisions which allow “reasonable chastisement” or “lawful correction”. In addition there may be education laws providing for corporal punishment in schools and laws allowing corporal punishment in penal institutions and as a sentence of the courts.
Law reform to end corporal punishment involves removing any provisions authorising corporal punishment and removing any special defences that may exist, so that the criminal law on assault applies equally to any assault of a child, whether or not it is described as discipline. It is a fundamental principle of human rights – upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 26 – that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.
In some states the law is silent on corporal punishment of children, but nevertheless it is socially and legally accepted and therefore explicit prohibition is required.
Click (active link at the web site) for the latest summary information on progress towards universal prohibition, and selected facts and figures on states pursuing reform and states so far resisting.
Click (active link at the web site) for information of legislation in states which have achieved full prohibition.
Worldwide, corporal punishment in schools has been prohibited in at least 108 states. But at least 78 states have not prohibited corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions for children in conflict with the law, and 43 have not prohibited it as a judicial sentence of the courts for young people convicted of an offence.
Our online global table shows data for all states and dependent territories on the extent of prohibition in three categories: Home; School; Penal system. Listed alphabetically, select from below
: TABLE A-D | TABLE E-H | TABLE I-L | TABLE M-P | TABLE Q-T | TABLE U-Z (active links at the web site)
Also available from the table are individual reports for each state, with details of laws relating to corporal punishment in the home, schools, penal system and alternative care settings, as well as summaries of prevalence research and extracts from recommendations made by human rights treaty bodies. Click here for individual state reports.
Our global and regional tables, available as PDF files (updated August 2009), summarise the extent of prohibition in the home, schools, as a sentence for crime, as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, and in alternative care settings. Download from here:
[Please visit the web site for latest data]
This analysis has been compiled from information from governmental and non-governmental sources, including reports on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort is made to maintain its accuracy. Please send us updating information and details of sources for missing information: info@endcorporalpunishment.org.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Sask. children’s advocate adds support to anti-spanking bill (cbc.ca)
- Spanking Hurts Kids’ IQ (abcnews.go.com)
- Corporal Punishment in U.S. Schools (time.com)
- UN agency adopted a new general comment in 2006 on corporal punishment (endhereditaryreligion.com)
Abuses Against Children Persist Despite Rights Convention

- Image by talkradionews via Flickr
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-08-voa53.cfm
VOANews.com
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
08 October 2009Child rights advocates have kicked off more than a month of global activities leading up to the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention, which was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 20, 1989, is the most widely ratified international human rights treaty. Every country in the world, except the United States and Somalia, has ratified it.
Before the Convention on the Rights of the Child came into force in 1989, most of the world thought children should be seen and not heard. Now, 20 years later, some of their voices are being heard, but their rights continue to be violated.
“I believe every child has the right to feel safe, protected from armed conflict, abuse, child labor, trafficking, exploitation. It is really very simple. No child should have to suffer at the hands of others. Not one,” says UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, Hollywood actress, Mia Farrow, who has been fighting for the rights of children for years.
Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving to accomplish US Senate ratification of the UN CRC. Political analysts say there are votes in the Senate to accomplish ratification, but it may be a tough battle given the unmitigated opposition by fringe partisans who seemingly speak for the Republican party these days. The preposterous lies and distortions they are spreading about the convention are beyond the pale.
Ratification is merely the first step. The difficult challenge will come when state and federal laws will have to be adapted to the requirements of the convention. One obstacle is the prohibition of executing minors which is legal in Texas. Corporal punishment is still legal in 20 states even though there is consensus by child development experts that this reprehensible practice is counter productive. Over 60 nations have made it a crime to strike a child. We must govern ourselves by reason not dogma.
The UN CRC is not just about child soldiers in Africa or elsewhere, or the trafficking of children for illicit purposes. Approximately 9,000,000 American children suffered abuse or neglect in a recent year where data is available.
The Republican religious fringe must not be permitted to seize control of our national debate like they did with health care reform. Shout them down and shut them up, they have no legitimate standing.
For example:
“Folks, this is scary stuff! Big Brother (Governments) want to take over our rights as parents and have children tell us what to do! The devil loves to twist around the natural order that Almighty God has made, we are in dark times!”
– Deacon John
Quoted from the web site: http://deaconforlife.blogspot.com/2009/06/childs-rights-forces-mobilize.html
Related articles by Zemanta
- Children’s Bill of Religious Rights (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Children have the right to information (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Parents’ Rights Amendment Reaches 120 Co-Sponsors (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
- BILL S-207 and the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children (endhereditaryreligion.com)
Innaiah Narisetti
—– Forced Into Faith: How Religion Abuses Children’s Rights by Innaiah Narisetti (Prometheus Books)
In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, proclaiming elementary rights for children worldwide. Among other provisions, the Convention safeguards children’s religious freedom and their freedom of thought. But because child rearing is recognized as the primary responsibility of parents, the question of what children are raised to believe is left up to their mothers and fathers.
In this controversial critique of the UN Convention, humanist Innaiah Narisetti forcefully argues that children’s rights should include complete freedom from religious belief. Narisetti proposes that the choice of religious belief or nonbelief should be deferred till adulthood. Just as most societies recognize that marriage and civic responsibilities such as voting are adult prerogatives that children should not be allowed to exercise, so should the choice of a belief system wait till an individual is competent to exercise mature judgment.
Narisetti cites numerous examples of the ways in which early religious indoctrination leads to later negative attitudes such as intolerance, suspicion, and outright hostility directed toward those who believe differently. He also notes that religion provides a cloak for such obvious evils as sexual abuse, genital mutilation, and corporal punishment of children. While most societies are quick to condemn such abuses, Narisetti suggests that they should be willing to take the next logical step and look to the role of religion in such problems.
Including the complete text of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this candid, unflinching critique of childhood religious education will provoke much thoughtful discussion.
Innaiah Narisetti, Ph.D. (Hyderabad, India), is the chairman of the Center for Inquiry, India, the former general secretary of the Indian Radical Humanist Association, and the author of Let Sanity Prevail, M. N. Roy: Radical Humanist, and four other books.
Forced Into Faith: How Religion Abuses Children’s Rights
Preparing children for death

- Image via Wikipedia
We think kids are mistreated by parents now, and they are, but it is encouraging to look back and see that we have made some progress. Little did I realize, until I started digging into the history and philosophy of childhood, just how bad it was for kids in the past. Feeding children superstition and dogma must end, imagine telling scary tales to children as a form of discipline. Again we note the ever present influence of clergy. Most people are probably not aware of the role of clergy, beyond the obvious admonitions they made to whip children.
My grandmother was born during the waning days of the Victorian period, and she of course directly influenced my mother who was born in 1917. However, my mother never told me frightening tales as punishment. All children seem to love to listen to stories and I was no different. Perhaps it is because even very young children recognize that this is quality time. Just you and a beloved parent and they are focused perhaps for the first time in the day when they sit down on your bedside, open a book and begin to read. If they are good at this, they also supply appropriate sound effects and voice characterizations as good as any actor on the big screen.
I was treated to many fairy tales, but I don’t recall being especially frightened by Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Jack in the Bean Stalk, or Little Red Riding Hood. Perhaps some of our readers can comment on their childhood memories.
Alexander Bain is an interesting historical figure in the pantheon of humanists. We should celebrate his birthday and revive his memory. Perhaps hold an international day of protest against forcing faith on children and pick his birthday for holding the event.
Pass Grade in Passing On by Jacob Middleton examines how the Victorians’ obsession with death extended to terrifying their children in order to prepare them for the grave.
May 2007, Fortean Times
In 1880, the philosopher Alexander Bain complained about the way in which Victorian society disciplined its children. While he saw many methods as ineffectual, he reserved his greatest hostility to what he dubbed “spiritual, ghostly, or supernatural terrors”. 1 Bain was a rationalist, heavily influenced by the utilitarian philosophers of the early 19th century, and his hostility towards what he regarded as superstition is therefore hardly surprising. What disturbed him most, however, was not the nature of this means of disciplining children, but its ubiquity; in a society that wished to regard itself as rational and modern, most children were frightened into quiescence by the threat of supernatural terrors.
The period in which Bain was writing was one in which corporal punishment of children at school and home was habitual and the treatment to which many children was subjected was considered, even then, to be cruel and demeaning. Moreover, supernatural retribution had long been considered an acceptable means of disciplining children. In The History of the Fairchild Family, probably the most successful children’s book in Victorian Britain, death is painfully visited upon those who disobey parental authority. A child might find itself burnt to death for the sin of vanity, while illicitly consuming preserved fruit would “merely” result in a near-fatal fever. 2 Such punishments were regarded as natural consequences of disobedience, a divine retribution.
Cautionary tales, such as those in The History of the Fairchild Family, were made more believable by the ever-present threat of sudden death in an era of limited medical expertise, which was seeing the first discoveries of microbiology. Children were expected to be aware of their mortality from an early age, and there was even a literary genre devoted to teaching children how to die a ‘good death’. These works were invariably true stories, relating how particular children met their end with appropriate Christian fortitude when struck down by disease. 3
However, while such literature was heavily promoted by the clergy, and by middle-class parents keen to give their offspring a religious upbringing, it formed only one strand in a popular culture preparing children for death. Perhaps it is surprising to the modern reader, used to stereotypes of religious Victorians, to find how small a part Christianity played in their education. Although most Britons would have described themselves as Christian, it was found in 1851 that only a quarter of the population attended church. 4 Education about death, then, was provided for in other ways, often through popular literature and folk custom. From the mid-19th century, this was supplemented by Spiritualism, a movement that concerned itself with raising children with the ‘correct’ attitude to death and the afterlife. It is estimated that, by the end of the Victorian period, as many as 10,000 children were attending lyceums, the spiritualist equivalent of Sunday schools. 5 What we can be certain of is that the messages that the 19th-century child received about death and its spiritual implications were many and varied.
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/commentary/443/pass_grade_in_passing_on.html
The Philosophy of Childhood
Too many parents believe they own their children and can do anything they wish with them. Among Christian nationalist zealots this idea is extremely common and they make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims to justify their ownership of their children. The roots of their oftentimes belligerant attitude go all the way back to Greek philosophers. What of the rights of children? The following is published at the end of an encyclopedia entry in the Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy. As the article points out the philosophy of childhood is a new academic field.
Aristotle regarded children as property of the father. On the ground that there can be no injustice “in the unqualified sense” towards what is one’s own, he reasoned that a father cannot be unjust to his own child. Until children reach their majority, according to Aristotle, they, like their father’s chattel, are, as it were, “part of himself,” and, since “no one chooses to hurt himself,” there can be “no injustice towards oneself” and hence no injustice committed by father toward a child. (Nicomachean Ethics 5.6, 1134b8-12) With our present-day awareness of child abuse, we may find these words hard to take seriously. Yet, in certain important respects, we have not moved all that far from the view Aristotle expresses.
Today even pets and farm animals have minimal legal protection against abuse. Children enjoy, at least in principle, much more extensive legal protection; and certainly enlightened people have become much more sensitive to the prevalence of child abuse, which they strongly condemn. Nevertheless, there are many respects in which, legally and morally, children are still treated today as the property of their parents. Thus, for example, a court may award the custody of a child whose mother has died to the child’s biological father, even though the child has never lived with him but has been taken care of by the mother’s life-in partner, whom she loves and regards as her father. In general, the “property” conception of children makes it hard to be sure that children will enjoy the protection against abuse they need, and the love and support they both need and deserve.
John Locke suggested that parents hold their children in custody from God, until their maturity. According to him, all parents are placed by the Law of Nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the Children they had begotten, not as their own Workmanship, but the Workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to who they were to be accountable for them. (Second Treatise of Government, sec. 56)
Locke added that the power “that Parents have over their Children, arises from that Duty which is incumbent on them to take care of their Offspring, during the imperfect state of Childhood.” (ibid., sec. 58)
The idea that one holds one’s children in custody from God might be a very attractive one in a society united by a common theology. But it seems to be of no general use in our own multi-cultural and largely secular society. On the other hand, if, like Plato, we thought of children as the property of the state, then parents could be thought of as having their children in custody for the state. But we are not, most of us, comfortable with that idea either. As it is, we can perhaps do little better than think of the society as having a legal and moral interest in protecting the welfare of its children – an interest that underlies and justifies legal protections against child abuse, as well as welfare measures that do something to promote their health and provide for their education. One might want to add, as I do, that a liberal society also has an interest in validating and protecting certain children’s rights. But how such a claim could be justified goes well beyond the scope of this paper.
Recent contributions to this discussion include Cohen (1980), which takes the position that children should have the same rights as adults even if, lacking the capacities needed to exercise a given right that adults have, they will need to borrow the capacities of others to exercise those rights. In contrast to the Cohen position, Purdy (1992) argues that affording equal rights to children would damage their own interests, as well as those of the society.
A useful introduction to the wide range of philosophical issues that concern children’s rights is to be found in Ladd (1996). See also Gross, 1977, Houlgate, 1980, Wringe, 1981, and Archard, 1993.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/childhood/
Note: This valuable resource could use a small donation to help them out.
Older Posts »




![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=48cc0189-460b-4ec5-a006-6811fdd0a294)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=87d7d401-f1ef-4246-a645-fff7d5aad20b)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=63060715-04aa-4853-9d7b-039f8428854d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=110cb2d3-374c-43a1-a29b-25caf9ebd1b3)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=572de16d-546c-488a-ba55-f64e684d50b4)




