Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Calgar...09/532794.html
Fri, July 9, 2004 Judge OKs spanking Dad's actions ruled reasonable By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN Spanking his eight-year-old son after the boy threatened to "grab a lawyer" and sue him wasn't a criminal act by a city dad, a judge ruled yesterday. Judge Bob Wilkins said James Dean Boyd exercised reasonable force when he disciplined his son 19 months ago. "The force used by the accused falls within the scope enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada and was 'a minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature,'" Wilkins said. "The action of the accused in spanking his son was for corrective purposes." Police were called by Boyd's ex-wife after she discovered bruising on the child's bum after he was returned to her Nov. 23, 2002, following an access visit. Defence lawyer Joel Livergant argued the bruising occurred while the child was tobogganing, but Wilkins said without medical evidence, he could not say what caused the injury. Boyd admitted spanking the child three times on the behind for disciplinary reasons after the child had acted up and told the father to "shut up." The incident occurred at Boyd's brother's home and involved a dispute between the child, whom Wilkins did not identify by name, and his cousins. The judge noted the boy stood on stairs, yelling "I hate this place, I hate you, I'm going to grab a lawyer, I'm going to sue you all and I'm going to live in a foster home." "This outburst was followed by the child telling his father to 'shut up,'" Wilkins said. "I accept his explanation that the spanking was done for corrective purposes, as a last resort and was not done out of anger, maliciousness or revenge," the judge said. Wilkins said the Criminal Code permits persons in authority to use force for discipline as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. He said Boyd's actions were intended to be for educative or corrective purposes and the force used was not excessive. Outside court, a relieved Boyd said it's important to have legislation that protects a parent's right to discipline a child. "It just reinforces, or gives the parent the opportunity to reinforce a verbal command with a reasonable amount of force," he said. "To let young people know ... there's a consequence for their actions." |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case
Canada is ahead of the USA in its treatment of children, but Canmada
isn't perfect either. Thanks for the post. LaVonne Fern5827 wrote: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Calgar...09/532794.html Fri, July 9, 2004 Judge OKs spanking Dad's actions ruled reasonable By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN Spanking his eight-year-old son after the boy threatened to "grab a lawyer" and sue him wasn't a criminal act by a city dad, a judge ruled yesterday. Judge Bob Wilkins said James Dean Boyd exercised reasonable force when he disciplined his son 19 months ago. "The force used by the accused falls within the scope enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada and was 'a minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature,'" Wilkins said. "The action of the accused in spanking his son was for corrective purposes." Police were called by Boyd's ex-wife after she discovered bruising on the child's bum after he was returned to her Nov. 23, 2002, following an access visit. Defence lawyer Joel Livergant argued the bruising occurred while the child was tobogganing, but Wilkins said without medical evidence, he could not say what caused the injury. Boyd admitted spanking the child three times on the behind for disciplinary reasons after the child had acted up and told the father to "shut up." The incident occurred at Boyd's brother's home and involved a dispute between the child, whom Wilkins did not identify by name, and his cousins. The judge noted the boy stood on stairs, yelling "I hate this place, I hate you, I'm going to grab a lawyer, I'm going to sue you all and I'm going to live in a foster home." "This outburst was followed by the child telling his father to 'shut up,'" Wilkins said. "I accept his explanation that the spanking was done for corrective purposes, as a last resort and was not done out of anger, maliciousness or revenge," the judge said. Wilkins said the Criminal Code permits persons in authority to use force for discipline as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. He said Boyd's actions were intended to be for educative or corrective purposes and the force used was not excessive. Outside court, a relieved Boyd said it's important to have legislation that protects a parent's right to discipline a child. "It just reinforces, or gives the parent the opportunity to reinforce a verbal command with a reasonable amount of force," he said. "To let young people know ... there's a consequence for their actions." |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case
But we know that Sweden is perfect! Swedish parents don't spank, they just yell! ;-) Doan On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote: Canada is ahead of the USA in its treatment of children, but Canmada isn't perfect either. Thanks for the post. LaVonne Fern5827 wrote: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Calgar...09/532794.html Fri, July 9, 2004 Judge OKs spanking Dad's actions ruled reasonable By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN Spanking his eight-year-old son after the boy threatened to "grab a lawyer" and sue him wasn't a criminal act by a city dad, a judge ruled yesterday. Judge Bob Wilkins said James Dean Boyd exercised reasonable force when he disciplined his son 19 months ago. "The force used by the accused falls within the scope enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada and was 'a minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature,'" Wilkins said. "The action of the accused in spanking his son was for corrective purposes." Police were called by Boyd's ex-wife after she discovered bruising on the child's bum after he was returned to her Nov. 23, 2002, following an access visit. Defence lawyer Joel Livergant argued the bruising occurred while the child was tobogganing, but Wilkins said without medical evidence, he could not say what caused the injury. Boyd admitted spanking the child three times on the behind for disciplinary reasons after the child had acted up and told the father to "shut up." The incident occurred at Boyd's brother's home and involved a dispute between the child, whom Wilkins did not identify by name, and his cousins. The judge noted the boy stood on stairs, yelling "I hate this place, I hate you, I'm going to grab a lawyer, I'm going to sue you all and I'm going to live in a foster home." "This outburst was followed by the child telling his father to 'shut up,'" Wilkins said. "I accept his explanation that the spanking was done for corrective purposes, as a last resort and was not done out of anger, maliciousness or revenge," the judge said. Wilkins said the Criminal Code permits persons in authority to use force for discipline as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. He said Boyd's actions were intended to be for educative or corrective purposes and the force used was not excessive. Outside court, a relieved Boyd said it's important to have legislation that protects a parent's right to discipline a child. "It just reinforces, or gives the parent the opportunity to reinforce a verbal command with a reasonable amount of force," he said. "To let young people know ... there's a consequence for their actions." |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case
On 03 Aug 2004 14:01:38 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
And yet many *researchers* have found that VERBAL ABUSE IS FAR MORE THREATENING, anxiety-provoking, and harmful to children than quick, consequential spanking. Parents who chose not to use CP have little trouble seeing the danger in verbal abuse...hence they do not usually choose it as an alternative. Invariabely they either already parented with the alternative of gentleness, or if they are X-compulsives, they quickly go hunting for the gentler way. Except..... It's only those that spank and contemplate having it taken away from them that consider verbal abuse as a "discipline" alternative. Goes to show you how brain dead they are. And you are one of them. As you know I advocate non-punitive parenting...that is gentle, supportive, loving, and instructional parenting. I did not punish my children and they easily overcame their frustrations with learning and became independent problem solvers, trusting me to help, assist, support, when they indicated they needed it. So you can't be talking about me...but rather you and the spanking compulsives crowd that can't think beyond "punishment" as discipline. One can see the verbal abuse which is practiced on this Ng by those who ostensibly eschew punishment. What is it you are asking for, Plant? Why don't you come right out with it and tell us about your ...ummmm...ahhhh...peculiar fetishes and desires? R R R R R R Personally I'm not into that kind of weirdness. But you....hmmmm...reminds me of another poster who once said of bloody beatings that "I deserved them." You recall? You are aware of course that YOU are verbally abusive? Or aren't you? Doan countered thusly: He diverted and weaseled. And in fact chose a model as analogy that does not hold up under closer inspection. In other words, his "countered thusly" was, as usual, a lie or ignorance. Take your pick, I know my pick. For a clearer and more objective veiw on the question of Sweden's policy on CP read the following: http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm You'll also be pleased to note that yet another country has banned all CP, home and school. This country's youth has been known for its wildness, with drinking and drugs being something of a problem there. Though the crime rate is rather low for juveniles. It will take about 12 years to see the real results, as children being born from 2003 on, will fall under that law and be entering the teen years by then. It will be interesting to see if the abuse rates drop, though, like Sweden and all other countries where more attention is placed on this issue suddenly, there will be an obvious rise in reporting abuse. Before beating a child was legal, so of course what could people report that was illegal about it.....? Nothing. Subject: Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case From: Doan Date: 8/2/2004 6:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: But we know that Sweden is perfect! Swedish parents don't spank, they just yell! ;-) Dear dear Droananator, There was an increase in yelling. We do not know if all who stopped spanking turned to yelling. The info is not clear, and the message is not what you claim it is. Given the training that was offered they certainly didn't have to yell. But the training was not mandatory. However, you compulsives can't seem to do other than assume that loss of one way of hurting and humiliating a child has to be replaced with another for "discipline," now don't you? Admit it...it's about brute force parenting, not loving, gentle supportive parenting. Let us know when you have the real answer to The Question. Where is the line that marks the boundary between CP for discipline and CP that injures? Kane Doan On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote: Canada is ahead of the USA in its treatment of children, but Canmada isn't perfect either. Thanks for the post. LaVonne Fern5827 wrote: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Calgar...09/532794.html Fri, July 9, 2004 Judge OKs spanking Dad's actions ruled reasonable By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN Spanking his eight-year-old son after the boy threatened to "grab a lawyer" and sue him wasn't a criminal act by a city dad, a judge ruled yesterday. Judge Bob Wilkins said James Dean Boyd exercised reasonable force when he disciplined his son 19 months ago. "The force used by the accused falls within the scope enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada and was 'a minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature,'" Wilkins said. "The action of the accused in spanking his son was for corrective purposes." Police were called by Boyd's ex-wife after she discovered bruising on the child's bum after he was returned to her Nov. 23, 2002, following an access visit. Defence lawyer Joel Livergant argued the bruising occurred while the child was tobogganing, but Wilkins said without medical evidence, he could not say what caused the injury. Boyd admitted spanking the child three times on the behind for disciplinary reasons after the child had acted up and told the father to "shut up." The incident occurred at Boyd's brother's home and involved a dispute between the child, whom Wilkins did not identify by name, and his cousins. The judge noted the boy stood on stairs, yelling "I hate this place, I hate you, I'm going to grab a lawyer, I'm going to sue you all and I'm going to live in a foster home." "This outburst was followed by the child telling his father to 'shut up,'" Wilkins said. "I accept his explanation that the spanking was done for corrective purposes, as a last resort and was not done out of anger, maliciousness or revenge," the judge said. Wilkins said the Criminal Code permits persons in authority to use force for discipline as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. He said Boyd's actions were intended to be for educative or corrective purposes and the force used was not excessive. Outside court, a relieved Boyd said it's important to have legislation that protects a parent's right to discipline a child. "It just reinforces, or gives the parent the opportunity to reinforce a verbal command with a reasonable amount of force," he said. "To let young people know ... there's a consequence for their actions." |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case
On 3 Aug 2004, Kane wrote: On 03 Aug 2004 14:01:38 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote: And yet many *researchers* have found that VERBAL ABUSE IS FAR MORE THREATENING, anxiety-provoking, and harmful to children than quick, consequential spanking. Parents who chose not to use CP have little trouble seeing the danger in verbal abuse...hence they do not usually choose it as an alternative. Invariabely they either already parented with the alternative of gentleness, or if they are X-compulsives, they quickly go hunting for the gentler way. Except..... You meant they don't talk to their kids? Where do they draw the line between talking to their kids and verbal abuse? ;-) It's only those that spank and contemplate having it taken away from them that consider verbal abuse as a "discipline" alternative. WRONG! It's what the non-spanking zealotS promoted! "Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as well as children to express their anger in words. Parents insist that discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or that yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. Still, many point out that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than physical punishment." See if you can use your "formidable research skill" to findout where those quotes come from. :-) Goes to show you how brain dead they are. And you are one of them. So Swedish parents are brain dead according to you? ;-) As you know I advocate non-punitive parenting...that is gentle, supportive, loving, and instructional parenting. I did not punish my children and they easily overcame their frustrations with learning and became independent problem solvers, trusting me to help, assist, support, when they indicated they needed it. So now you claiming you don't hit your kids? ;-) So you can't be talking about me...but rather you and the spanking compulsives crowd that can't think beyond "punishment" as discipline. LOL! And you can't think beyond "smelly-****"! :-) One can see the verbal abuse which is practiced on this Ng by those who ostensibly eschew punishment. What is it you are asking for, Plant? Why don't you come right out with it and tell us about your ...ummmm...ahhhh...peculiar fetishes and desires? R R R R R R LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! Personally I'm not into that kind of weirdness. But you....hmmmm...reminds me of another poster who once said of bloody beatings that "I deserved them." You recall? You are aware of course that YOU are verbally abusive? Or aren't you? LOL! And Kane is not? :-) Doan countered thusly: He diverted and weaseled. And in fact chose a model as analogy that does not hold up under closer inspection. More lies from Kane0! In other words, his "countered thusly" was, as usual, a lie or ignorance. Take your pick, I know my pick. You are looking in the mirror again! :-) For a clearer and more objective veiw on the question of Sweden's policy on CP read the following: http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm LOL! "Objective"??? Come on, Kane! Stop showing your stupidity! You'll also be pleased to note that yet another country has banned all CP, home and school. This country's youth has been known for its wildness, with drinking and drugs being something of a problem there. Though the crime rate is rather low for juveniles. You meant it is as low as Singapore? :-) It will take about 12 years to see the real results, as children being born from 2003 on, will fall under that law and be entering the teen years by then. It has been 25 years since they banned spanking in Sweden. The crime rate their is still much higher than Singapore! It will be interesting to see if the abuse rates drop, though, like Sweden and all other countries where more attention is placed on this issue suddenly, there will be an obvious rise in reporting abuse. Before beating a child was legal, so of course what could people report that was illegal about it.....? Nothing. The abuse rate increased in Sweden after the ban. I was meaning to post this paper for sometime but never got around to it. Now that I have some free time, here it is: Doan Begin include Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little sound evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggression. This paper explores whether the 1979 Swedish law against all corporal punishment has reduced their child abuse. Sweden's 1979 law was welcomed by many as a much needed policy toward reducing physical child abuse. Surprisingly, this search located only five published studies with any relevant data. The best study found that the rate of child abuse was 49% higher in Sweden than in the United States, comparing a 1980 Swedish national survey with the average rates from two national surveys in the United States in 1975 and 1985. By comparison, a retrospective survey of university students in 1981 found that the Swedish child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and the 1970s, prior to the anti-spanking law. More recent Swedish data indicate a 489% increase in one child abuse statistic from 1981 through 1994, as well as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors. The article discusses possible reasons for this apparent increase in child abuse and calls for better evaluations of innovative policies intended to reduce societal abuse and violence. Poster presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, August 18, 1996. Where is Evidence That Non-Abusive Corporal Punishment Increases Aggression? Two recent reviews of the literature on parental corporal punishment have found few methodologically sound studies. Further, hardly any of the soundest studies found detrimental child outcomes associated with corporal punishment. This paper explores whether there is evidence that the outlawing of corporal punishment by parents in Sweden and other countries has had any discernible effect, particularly on child abuse and, to a lesser degree, on child outcomes such as aggression. Lyons, Anderson, and Larson (1993) attempted to review all journal articles on corporal punishment by parents from 1984 through 1993. Only 24 of the 132 articles (17%) included any empirical data on corporal punishment. Less than half of those (11) investigated corporal punishment as a possible cause of some other variable. Most (83%) of the studies were cross-sectional, and only one made any attempt to exclude child abuse from the measure of corporal punishment. They concluded that there was empirical evidence supporting one of three hypotheses: Several studies found that parents were more likely to use corporal punishment themselves if their parents had used it. There was no sound evidence that corporal punishment was ineffective, nor that it was associated with child aggression. Larzelere (in press) built on their review by extending the search of peer- reviewed articles to the period 1974 to 1995 plus older articles that met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were designed to exclude studies that were cross-sectional or whose measures emphasized the severity of usage of corporal punishment. Only 18 studies were found that both met the two inclusion criteria and limited the sample to children under 13 years of age. The 8 strongest studies found beneficial outcomes of corporal punishment, usually in 2- to 6-year-olds. The 10 other studies were prospective (6) or retrospective (4). Three of them found detrimental outcomes, but only 1 of those 3 made any attempt to exclude abuse from its measure of corporal punishment. Further, none of the 10 studies controlled for the initial level of child misbehavior. This seems to be an important methodological problem, since the frequency of every type of discipline response tends to be positively associated with child misbehavior, whether the associations are cross-sectional or longitudinal (Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996; Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, in press). Finally, no alternative discipline response in any of the 18 studies was associated with more beneficial child outcomes than was corporal punishment, whereas 7 alternatives were associated with more detrimental child outcomes, mostly in 2- to 6-year-olds. These reviews suggest that the empirical linkage between nonabusive corporal punishment and aggression comes only from cross-sectional studies, studies of teenagers, studies measuring particularly severe forms of corporal punishment, and, perhaps, studies of punitiveness. This led us to ask how well current societal experiments are working in countries that have outlawed all forms of parental use of corporal punishment. In 1979, Sweden passed a law prohibiting all corporal punishment by parents. This was hailed as a crucial step in the effort to reduce child abuse (Deley, 1988; Feshbach, 1980; Ziegert, 1983). Several countries have passed similar laws since then (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Austria, and Cyprus), and organizations have formed to advocate against parental corporal punishment throughout the world (e.g., End Physical Punishment of Children [EPOCH]: Radda Barnen, no date). This movement represents one of the most sweeping changes ever advocated by social scientists. In the United States, for example, about 90% of parents have spanked their 3-year-old children in the past year (Straus, 1983; Wauchope & Straus, 1990). Some social scientific research has been used to support the anti-spanking position (e.g., Hyman, 1995; Straus, 1994), but the reviews summarized above have found such support coming primarily from methodologically poor studies. Given the inconclusiveness of relevant research and the importance of the issue, it is desirable to know whether child abuse has decreased in Sweden following their 1979 anti-spanking law. Accordingly, this article asks two inter-related questions: (1) To what extent have social scientists evaluated the effect of the 1979 anti-spanking law in Sweden, and (2) what do those evaluations indicate about the effects of the anti-spanking law in reducing child abuse? We also report one finding about Swedish trends in assaults by minors discovered during our study. Literature Search for Evaluations Two procedures were used to find evaluations of the effects of Sweden's anti- spanking law. First, PsycLit was searched from 1974 through June of 1995 for all publications that included "Sweden" or "Swedish" and either "punishment" or "spanking" in their abstracts. Second, Social Sciences Citation Index was used to identify all articles citing Gelles and Edfeldt (1986) through April 1995, because their study reported a well-done survey of Swedish child abuse rates one year after the anti-spanking law was passed. Empirical Evaluations of Sweden's Anti-Spanking Law Five published studies and one unpublished paper were found that included any empirical information relevant for evaluating the 1979 anti-spanking law. Ziegert (1983) published a conceptual, preliminary article on why the law should be effective. His only empirical data was from a Swedish opinion poll showing that the percentage of respondents considering corporal punishment to be necessary had dropped from 53% in 1965 to 35% in 1971 to 26% in 1979 and 1981. In an article comparing Swedish and American use of corporal punishment, Solheim (1982) reported that 26% of Swedish respondents considered corporal punishment necessary in 1978. Like Ziegert (1983), Solheim's (1982) article was mostly nonempirical, discussing such issues as court decisions about corporal punishment in schools, the 1979 law, and expert opinions. Together these two articles show that the decline in support for the necessity of parental corporal punishment in Sweden preceded the 1979 law, and it did not decrease thereafter, at least through 1981. A third article reported the rate of child homicides in various European countries, comparing 1973/1974 with approximately 1987/1988 (Pritchard, 1992). Note that this compared statistics before and after the 1979 law. The Swedish child homicide rate was the sixth lowest of the 17 countries at both time periods. However, it nearly doubled from 1973/1974 to 1986/1987. Sweden's 93% increase in its child homicide rate was the fifth largest percentage increase among the 17 countries. It should also be noted that the rate of accidental baby deaths in Sweden was the lowest of the 17 countries at both time periods. Unlike the child homicide rate, it decreased by 67% between the two time periods, although 10 of the other 16 countries decreased their accidental baby death rates by an even larger percentage. A fourth article compared child abuse rates among university students at one Swedish university compared to one American university as reported in a 1981 survey (Deley, 1988). Because these were retrospective reports, they were child abuse rates during the 1960s and the 1970s as these students were growing up, a time period preceding the 1979 law. The critical question asked whether a spanking had ever left physical marks that lasted for more than 10 minutes. Two percent of the Sweden students reported receiving such physical marks from a spanking, compared to 9.5% of the American students. Although this is far from a representative sample, this suggests that the child abuse rate in Sweden was only 21% of the American child abuse rate in the 1960s and 1970s (i.e., 2.0 divided by 9.5 = .21). The fifth and best study used telephone surveys of a nationally representative sample of Swedish parents to measure the rates of spanking and of child abuse in 1980 (Gelles & Edfeldt, 1986). It used the Conflict Tactics Scale, which was also used to measure the prevalence of spanking and child abuse in two National Family Violence Surveys in the USA (Straus & Gelles, 1986; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Gelles and Edfeldt (1986) compared their 1980 Swedish survey only with the 1975 National Family Violence Survey. They concluded that a smaller percentage of parents were spanking their children in Sweden than in the United States, but that there were no significant differences in child abuse rates. It would have been more appropriate, however, to compare their 1980 Swedish survey with the 1985 National Family Violence Survey in the USA (Straus & Gelles, 1986), which reported a 47% lower rate of child abuse in the United States than in 1975. For one thing, the 1980 Swedish survey was closer to the 1985 USA survey in its method, because both used telephone interviews. In contrast, the 1975 USA survey used face-to-face interviews. Table 1 gives the percentage of Swedish and United States parents reporting the use of various forms of physical aggression in both national surveys in the United States and the national survey in Sweden. In contrast to Gelles & Edfeldt (1986), we report whether the Swedish rate was significantly different from the mean USA rate from both the 1975 and the 1985 surveys. This approach represents a compromise on the issue of which USA survey is the most appropriate comparison, and it assumes that the 1980 rates in the USA might have been halfway between the 1975 and the 1985 rates. Table 1 Prevalence Rates of Various Forms of Physical Child Abuse in the United States and Sweden __________________________________________________ ____________________ United States Sweden Type of Violence 1975 1985 1980 1. Threw things at 5.4% 2.7% 3.6% 2. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved 40.5 30.7 49.4*** 3. Hit (spanked or slapped) 58.2 54.9 27.5*** 4. Kicked, bit, or hit with fist 3.2 1.3 2.2 5. Hit with an object (*1) 13.4 9.7 2.4*** 6. Beat up 1.3 .6 3.0*** 7. Threatened with a weapon .1 .2 .4 8. Used a weapon .1 .2 .4 Very Severe Violence (4, 6-8) 3.6 1.9 4.0* __________________________________________________ ______________________ 1 In the United States this item referred to attempted or completed hits. In Sweden, the item referred only to completed hits. The 1975 and 1980 surveys are taken from Gelles & Edfeldt (1986) and the 1985 survey from Straus & Gelles (1986). *p .05, 2-tailed t-test of proportions, comparing the combined USA samples with the Swedish sample. ***p .001, same test. As can be seen, significantly fewer Swedish parents spanked or hit their child with an object, compared to USA parents. Nonetheless, 27% of Swedish parents reported spanking or slapping their child in the past year, reflecting imperfect compliance with the law. In contrast, most of the more serious types of physical aggression occurred more often in Sweden one year after passing the anti-spanking law than they did in the United States. The rate of beating a child up was three times as high in Sweden as in the United States, the rate of using a weapon was twice as high, and the overall rate of Very Severe Violence was 49% higher in Sweden than the United States average from the 1975 and 1985 surveys. Except for weapon usage, all of these differences were significantly different using a test of differences between proportions (Downie & Heath, 1974, chap. 13), p .05. In addition, the rate of pushing, grabbing, or shoving was 39% higher in Sweden than the average rate in the United States, p .001. Thus, the rate of spanking was significantly lower in Sweden than in the United States, but the rate of other forms of physical aggression, including child abuse, was significantly higher in Sweden than in the United States. Because there were so few published studies with relevant empirical data, we also included an unpublished field study by Haeuser (1988) and sought additional data from Swedish sources. As co-founder of EPOCH-USA, an organization advocating the banning of all corporal punishment in the United States, Haeuser (1988) explicitly wanted to "promote positive visibility of this Swedish law in the U.S. and garner U.S. support for the possibility of promoting U.S. parenting norms which avoid physical punishment" (p. 2). Her paper was based on her 1981 and 1988 field visits to Sweden, using extensive interviews of 7 parents and 60 personnel in government, health and human services, and schools. In the summary, she concluded, "Most, if not all, believe the law has not affected the incidence of child abuse" (p. iii). Specifically, she reported that concerns about sexual abuse and youth gang violence had superseded concerns about physical child abuse by 1988. She also reported that she observed toddlers and young children often hitting their parents in her 1988 visit. According to her, "In 1981 both parents and professionals agreed that parents had not . . . found constructive alternatives to physical punishment [within the two years since the law was passed]. For most parents the alternative was yelling and screaming at their children, and some believed this was equally, perhaps more, destructive" (p. 22). Haeuser went on to report that most Swedish parents had developed firmer discipline techniques by 1988. Haeuser (1988) concluded that the child abuse rate was lower in Sweden than in the USA based on Swedish police statistics of 6.5 cases of physical child abuse per 1000 children in 1986. Haeuser compared this to a "U. S. rate of 9.2 to 10.7" per 1000 (Haeuser, 1988, p. 34), but acknowledged, "Since the Swedish police data omits child abuse cases known to social services but not warranting police intervention, the actual Swedish incidence rate is probably higher" (p. 34). However, the American survey that she cited (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect [NCCAN], 1988) indicated that the basis of the rate of 9.2 or 10.7 per 1000 differed from the Swedish police statistic in two ways. First, the USA rate included sexual and emotional abuse as well as physical abuse. Second, the USA rate included not only cases known to police, but also cases known to at least one professional across a wide range of occupations, including those in child protection services, public health, education (schools, daycare centers), hospitals, mental health, and social services. If limited to only physical abuse, the USA rate was only 4.9 or 5.7 known to at least one of these professionals, depending upon the definition of physical child abuse. If limited to all three kinds of abuse known specifically to police or sheriffs, the USA rate was only 2.2 per 1000 (NCCAN, 1988). The most relevant statistics we have obtained from Sweden are police-record trends in physical abuse of children under 7 years of age (Wittrock, 1992, 1995). Those records showed a 489% increase in the child abuse rate from 1981 to 1994 (see Figure 1). The same police records also indicated a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors (under 15 in Sweden) from 1981 to 1994 (see Figure 2). Discussion and Conclusions Although the Swedish anti-spanking law was intended to reduce child abuse, the best empirical study since then indicated that the rate of child abuse in Sweden was 49% higher than in the United States one year after the anti- spanking law was passed. Does this mean that the anti-spanking law increased the rate of physical child abuse in Sweden? Deley's (1988) retrospective data indicates that the Swedish physical child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and 1970s. This suggests that the anti-spanking law not only failed to achieve its goal of reducing child abuse, but that the child abuse rate increased from 21% to 149% of the equivalent USA rate, a seven-fold increase relative to the decreasing rate in the United States. We doubt that the increase was actually that substantial, because Deley used a retrospective measure with a small unrepresentative sample. Nonetheless, the available evidence suggests that a sizeable increase in the Swedish child abuse rate occurred around the time of the 1979 anti-spanking law. The other studies indicate no changes in attitudes about corporal punishment nor in child homicides due to the 1979 law. Was the apparent increase in the Swedish child abuse rate only a temporary increase following their anti-spanking law? More recent data on Swedish child abuse rates would help answer that question. One piece of subsequent data was the 6.5 cases of physical child abuse per 1,000 children in official 1986 Swedish police statistics, which was substantially higher than the 2.2 per 1,000 known to police or sheriffs in the USA. The other available evidence is the sharp increase in physical child abuse in Swedish police records from 1981 through 1994, along with a similar sharp increase in certain assaults by minors. Why might Sweden experience an increasing child abuse rate and an increase in assaults by minors after outlawing corporal punishment? Haeuser's (1988) description of some parental frustration and yelling in 1981 might indicate an increased risk of escalation to abuse at that time. This is reminiscent of Baumrind's (1973) observation of permissive parents. Compared to authoritative and authoritarian parents, permissive parents were the most likely to report "explosive attacks of rage in which they inflicted more pain or injury upon the child than they had intended. . . . Permissive parents apparently became violent because they felt that they could neither control the child's behavior nor tolerate its effect upon themselves" (Baumrind, 1973, p. 35). Permissive parents used spanking less than did either authoritative or authoritarian parents. So it could be that the prohibition of all spanking eliminates a type of mild spanking that prevents further escalation of aggression within discipline incidents (see Patterson's [1982] coercive family process). Haeuser's (1988) report suggests that Swedish parents later developed new, firm discipline responses that reduced escalations to yelling and possibly to child abuse. But adequate data on the resulting child abuse rates are lacking. In conclusion, the available Swedish data indicate that we cannot reduce child abuse just by mandating that parents stop using corporal punishment. Parents also need new, effective techniques to replace corporal punishment if it is to be outlawed. It is even possible that mild corporal punishment may play an important role in preventing escalation to abuse for some parents. The other surprise is that there has been so little empirical evaluation of the effects of Sweden's anti-spanking law. Perhaps it has seemed so obvious that eliminating parental spanking would reduce the child abuse rate that people have felt that no evaluation was needed. If so, this summary of available evidence should shake us out of our premature complacency. The role of parental discipline responses in preventing aggression in parent and child is surprisingly complex (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Patterson, 1982; Snyder & Patterson, 1995). We need better research to understand the complexities involved in parental discipline, including its relationship to child abuse. We need to discriminate effective from counterproductive forms of discipline responses, including the role of different forms of corporal punishment in increasing or decreasing the risk of child abuse. We also need better evaluations of policies designed to change parental discipline, given that the effects of the Swedish anti-spanking law seem to have had exactly the opposite effect of its intention, at least in the short term. End include Subject: Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case From: Doan Date: 8/2/2004 6:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: But we know that Sweden is perfect! Swedish parents don't spank, they just yell! ;-) Dear dear Droananator, There was an increase in yelling. We do not know if all who stopped spanking turned to yelling. It is what the anti-spanking zealotS promoted! The info is not clear, and the message is not what you claim it is. You can close your eyes and shut you ears. That does not change the fact! :-) Given the training that was offered they certainly didn't have to yell. But the training was not mandatory. It has been 25 years! However, you compulsives can't seem to do other than assume that loss of one way of hurting and humiliating a child has to be replaced with another for "discipline," now don't you? It has been 25 years! Admit it...it's about brute force parenting, not loving, gentle supportive parenting. It has been 25 years! Let us know when you have the real answer to The Question. LOL! Showing your stupidity again, Kane0! Where is the line that marks the boundary between CP for discipline and CP that injures? You don't know? :-) Doan Kane Doan On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote: Canada is ahead of the USA in its treatment of children, but Canmada isn't perfect either. Thanks for the post. LaVonne Fern5827 wrote: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Calgar...09/532794.html Fri, July 9, 2004 Judge OKs spanking Dad's actions ruled reasonable By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN Spanking his eight-year-old son after the boy threatened to "grab a lawyer" and sue him wasn't a criminal act by a city dad, a judge ruled yesterday. Judge Bob Wilkins said James Dean Boyd exercised reasonable force when he disciplined his son 19 months ago. "The force used by the accused falls within the scope enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada and was 'a minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature,'" Wilkins said. "The action of the accused in spanking his son was for corrective purposes." Police were called by Boyd's ex-wife after she discovered bruising on the child's bum after he was returned to her Nov. 23, 2002, following an access visit. Defence lawyer Joel Livergant argued the bruising occurred while the child was tobogganing, but Wilkins said without medical evidence, he could not say what caused the injury. Boyd admitted spanking the child three times on the behind for disciplinary reasons after the child had acted up and told the father to "shut up." The incident occurred at Boyd's brother's home and involved a dispute between the child, whom Wilkins did not identify by name, and his cousins. The judge noted the boy stood on stairs, yelling "I hate this place, I hate you, I'm going to grab a lawyer, I'm going to sue you all and I'm going to live in a foster home." "This outburst was followed by the child telling his father to 'shut up,'" Wilkins said. "I accept his explanation that the spanking was done for corrective purposes, as a last resort and was not done out of anger, maliciousness or revenge," the judge said. Wilkins said the Criminal Code permits persons in authority to use force for discipline as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. He said Boyd's actions were intended to be for educative or corrective purposes and the force used was not excessive. Outside court, a relieved Boyd said it's important to have legislation that protects a parent's right to discipline a child. "It just reinforces, or gives the parent the opportunity to reinforce a verbal command with a reasonable amount of force," he said. "To let young people know ... there's a consequence for their actions." |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:46:12 -0700, Doan wrote:
On 3 Aug 2004, Kane wrote: On 03 Aug 2004 14:01:38 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote: And yet many *researchers* have found that VERBAL ABUSE IS FAR MORE THREATENING, anxiety-provoking, and harmful to children than quick, consequential spanking. Parents who chose not to use CP have little trouble seeing the danger in verbal abuse...hence they do not usually choose it as an alternative. Invariabely they either already parented with the alternative of gentleness, or if they are X-compulsives, they quickly go hunting for the gentler way. Except..... You meant they don't talk to their kids? Where do they draw the line between talking to their kids and verbal abuse? ;-) They don't verbally abuse at all. The line is so far away for these families it is of no importance to know where it might be. For those families that DO believe in punishment, then you would have to answer that question for us, Droaner. YOU are from that camp, not I. So tell us, Droaner, for those that would risk by verbal punishment, the same risk that those who use CP, were is the line? You are such a dumb clutz. You really thought this would be a stumper, didn't you.......R R R R R R The ball is STILL in your court and never has come over the net to my side. I do not know where the line between CP/VP safe use and injurious abuse lies, nor have I ever claimed to. You can chose to cuddle your child while teaching them, or you can choose to explain things to them, each the opposite of CP or VP. It's only those that spank and contemplate having it taken away from them that consider verbal abuse as a "discipline" alternative. WRONG! It's what the non-spanking zealotS promoted! Nope. It's as true as the words I write that you deny. The "non-spanking zealotS" do not promote verbal abuse or verbal punishment..and the really smart ones, such as myself, know that punishment is a fools tool for teaching anyone anything. Or would you not rank me as one of the "non-spanking zealotS?" "Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as well as children to express their anger in words. Doesn't say "non-spanking zealotS" promote it. Just that Swedes use it. And one can "express" their anger in words without the least harm to the child, or to the adult by the child. Speaking in a calm voice, learning how to phrase non-blamefully, learning how to express empathy verbally about the problems that others have (such as the child) are ALL part of the major training that was introduced to the Swedes when they went to the new law....and it was Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training...PET, as it is often referred to as. And there isn't a loud or angry word in it, anywere. In fact were their IS a chance of the one hearing another's complaint there is a built in skill the user MUST learn FIRST to de-escalate the tension or upset the other MIGHT feel. Some day when you grow up and discover that anger, punishment, hostility, toward children isn't the only way to control them (and a sorry way that is) it might occur to read Gordon and find out what we are talking about. It's all there. It is simple. It takes some guts though when a child like you has been raised in pain and humilation parenting circumstances. Frankly I don't think you could understand a gentle way. Parents insist that discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm hold of young children to engage their attention. Yep. I don't approve. That doesn't mean the nospank law failed. It just means THEIR replacement failed my criteria. Parents and professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or that yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. They are wrong. That is simply punishment. It doesn't work. And it's NOT what "non-spanking zealotS" would promote. Not the one's that have figured out who humans actually function best. Still, many point out that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than physical punishment." To few alternatives being offered. I don't have humliate a child, and never have had to. Though I recall back when I was learning better I slipped a couple of times...but they skills I learn for gentle and supporting parenting stood me in good stead and I could recover in a split second any ground I and the child I addressed had lost. No, yelling isn't "less humiliating than" CP. Each has the capacity to be many different levels of humiliating. They are wrong in this. That does not make me part of their camp, however. You lump me with others the same way you categorize children, and parents. See if you can use your "formidable research skill" to findout where those quotes come from. :-) I already know. I've read them many times. Your posting and refusing to identify the source is YOUR problem with YOUR credibility, not mine. I've also posted before just about what I said here today.....probably tens of instances in the past. Maybe even hundreds by now. I am not of the same camp that wishes to use punishment at all. The fault of the research that fails to show just how stupid and dangerous spanking is failed on that very note.......the comparisons were with non cp punishment. And for kids who have been spanked before it's stupid to just switch to another form of it. Goes to show you how brain dead they are. And you are one of them. So Swedish parents are brain dead according to you? ;-) Not all. Many use no punishment. On those, as in any part of the world, that would substitute one punishment for another. What I said that you are responding to was this: It's only those that spank and contemplate having it taken away from them that consider verbal abuse as a "discipline" alternative. Since all swedish parents aren't mentioned in that statement, then your statement is pure bunk. Your usually public masturbation exhibition. Please show were all Swedish parents USED spanking before the ban, and that all Swedish parents that DID spank switched to verbal abuse. As I said, any that do so, are brain dead. Some can be awakened. You, apparently, cannot. This was another exercise in misleading by you Droany. You are a liar. As you know I advocate non-punitive parenting...that is gentle, supportive, loving, and instructional parenting. I did not punish my children and they easily overcame their frustrations with learning and became independent problem solvers, trusting me to help, assist, support, when they indicated they needed it. So now you claiming you don't hit your kids? ;-) Why would I hit them? So you can't be talking about me...but rather you and the spanking compulsives crowd that can't think beyond "punishment" as discipline. LOL! And you can't think beyond "smelly-****"! :-) Odd, I have posted millions of characters, thousands up thousands of words you seem to be ignoring. Yet another of your lies. One can see the verbal abuse which is practiced on this Ng by those who ostensibly eschew punishment. What is it you are asking for, Plant? Why don't you come right out with it and tell us about your ...ummmm...ahhhh...peculiar fetishes and desires? R R R R R R LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! I'm not the one that seems to be saying they prefer physical abuse over verbal. It's The Plant you should be addressing, and asking It to explain that "I can't remember if my father caught me and spanked me or not." Personally I'm not into that kind of weirdness. But you....hmmmm...reminds me of another poster who once said of bloody beatings that "I deserved them." You recall? You are aware of course that YOU are verbally abusive? Or aren't you? LOL! And Kane is not? :-) Of course I am. But not to children. Are you now saying you are exempt on those grounds? Doan countered thusly: He diverted and weaseled. And in fact chose a model as analogy that does not hold up under closer inspection. More lies from Kane0! Nope. All yah have to do is read your nonsense and you will see I am correct. In other words, his "countered thusly" was, as usual, a lie or ignorance. Take your pick, I know my pick. You are looking in the mirror again! :-) Nope...directly at you. Twice a day, usually. One day you'll figure it out, or I'll tell you. For a clearer and more objective veiw on the question of Sweden's policy on CP read the following: http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm LOL! "Objective"??? Come on, Kane! Stop showing your stupidity! Oh, and on what grounds do you claim Durrant is NOT objective? She just disagrees with you. Here logic and support for her claims are clear. Read them. . You'll also be pleased to note that yet another country has banned all CP, home and school. This country's youth has been known for its wildness, with drinking and drugs being something of a problem there. Though the crime rate is rather low for juveniles. You meant it is as low as Singapore? :-) I don't know. Why don't you show us. It will take about 12 years to see the real results, as children being born from 2003 on, will fall under that law and be entering the teen years by then. It has been 25 years since they banned spanking in Sweden. The crime rate their is still much higher than Singapore! It was higher before. It has reduced. Singapore, as you and I know from previous exchanges, experiences ups and downs, and some startling UPs recently in juvenile crime. It will be interesting to see if the abuse rates drop, though, like Sweden and all other countries where more attention is placed on this issue suddenly, there will be an obvious rise in reporting abuse. Before beating a child was legal, so of course what could people report that was illegal about it.....? Nothing. The abuse rate increased in Sweden after the ban. The abuse reporting rate did...as can be expected when folks go from being told it's okay to whale away on kids, to it NOT being okay. Are you suggesting the measure of success in Sweden would be an instant stoppage of all child abuse? Just the change in definition of abuse, which the ban had, would force the numbers up. I was meaning to post this paper for sometime but never got around to it. Now that I have some free time, here it is: Doan Ah, referrences to that most objective of researchers, Larzelere. We've seen it all before. It is inconclusive. It weasels just as you do. It makes claims that are NOT supported by the evidence presented, and in fact presents little evidence that is not easily answered by reality. Counts of abuse, as I answered above, for instance. Bogus nonsense. Begin include Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little sound evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggression. This paper explores whether the 1979 Swedish law against all corporal punishment has reduced their child abuse. Sweden's 1979 law was welcomed by many as a much needed policy toward reducing physical child abuse. Surprisingly, this search located only five published studies with any relevant data. The best study found that the rate of child abuse was 49% higher in Sweden than in the United States, comparing a 1980 Swedish national survey with the average rates from two national surveys in the United States in 1975 and 1985. By comparison, a retrospective survey of university students in 1981 found that the Swedish child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and the 1970s, prior to the anti-spanking law. More recent Swedish data indicate a 489% increase in one child abuse statistic from 1981 through 1994, as well as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors. Excuse me. This smacks of Droananation big time. Notice this from above: "By comparison, a retrospective survey of university students in 1981" How does one compare a student survey against this other data and draw any valid conclusions? In addition, one needs to look at the number of incidences of the event being considered. If there were only 10 to begin with, it would take only a few incidences to push it to high percentages. So what WAS the actual numbers of child abuse? Want to see the actual numbers? R R R R R R.....cover your eyes, Droany, you AREN'T going to like this: "Between 1971 and 1975, 5 children in Sweden died as a result of physical abuse. In the next 15 years, no children died because of abuse. Between 1990-1996, 4 children died from abuse but only 1 of them was killed by a parent." http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/c...s/Jan%2022.ppt Yah think Duke University is jivin' us, Droany? And what was that "one child abuse statistic" mentioned above? This bit of wordsmithing legerdeman is a clear indication of the lengths the authors will go to to obscure for their own agenda. One of the authors of the citation you give below is a renowned adversary of anti spanking organizations and people. As for minor on minor assualt: PC is as rapidly a growing phenomena in Sweden as here....children smacking each other at play in the school yard, "minor" 'assault' on "minor," probably has jumped the same way in the US. We now, as they do, REPORT these incidences where we didn't before. That IS what happens when you go from a violent child rearing method society (and the Swedes were close competitors to the Germans in that area) you WILL see people MUCH more conscience of and reporting anything that appears to be assault...that they would not have before. The society in Sweden is changing for the better. I personally think it takes about two generations for the culture to change in clearly identifiable ways when a major behavior component is changed by law. We see it in amendments to the constitution of the US. The first generation fights it still, for their privelege. The next gives in a bit, and by the third, it's just business as usual and folks can't remember what it was like before....say, during slavery. The article discusses possible reasons for this apparent increase in child abuse and calls for better evaluations of innovative policies intended to reduce societal abuse and violence. Notice that point...the same as mine....."possible reasons for the apparent" increase. That goes to the change in status of the behavior of spanking. One can't report abuse if it isn't abuse in the law, or if one does....it's not going to be counted as abuse since there is no statute to cover it. Once spanking became abuse then it could be reported and counted. You lie with every breath, Droany. And you find this old worn out sorry piece of nonsense twisting and weaseling paper to support you. Poster presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, August 18, 1996. Where is Evidence That Non-Abusive Corporal Punishment Increases Aggression? Two recent reviews of the literature on parental corporal punishment have found few methodologically sound studies. Further, hardly any of the soundest studies found detrimental child outcomes associated with corporal punishment. This paper explores whether there is evidence that the outlawing of corporal punishment by parents in Sweden and other countries has had any discernible effect, particularly on child abuse and, to a lesser degree, on child outcomes such as aggression. Lyons, Anderson, and Larson (1993) attempted to review all journal articles on corporal punishment by parents from 1984 through 1993. What journal? Or journals? I doubt they read everything in the world. Only 24 of the 132 articles (17%) Yep...there are one hell of a lot more than 132 articles out there on this issue. . included any empirical data on corporal punishment. Less than half of those (11) investigated corporal punishment as a possible cause of some other variable. The logic is flawed in that statement. The issue isn't CP as cause of a variable. It's change in a constant, or it's not research. Variables change for many reasons....constants are just that, constant....so if THEY change you have something significant to consider. They just because variables. LIghts are supposed to flash and sirens scream. Most (83%) of the studies were cross-sectional, and only one made any attempt to exclude child abuse from the measure of corporal punishment. R R R R ...... that's for the simple reason that most people that can think know that the line is not definable by current scientific means...probably never will be either. Hence the do NOT try, as one reasearcher you idiots quoted here, did by removing the worst cases and calling them "abuse." You remember her, don't you Droany. Wouldn't even submit to peer review, but nonetheless went public with her "findings." They concluded that there was empirical evidence supporting one of three hypotheses: Several studies found that parents were more likely to use corporal punishment themselves if their parents had used it. There was no sound evidence that corporal punishment was ineffective, nor that it was associated with child aggression. The first is obvious. The second is bull****, just like you post. Their is ample study to show that not only is it ineffective in the longer run, but has a high risk of side effects like public exhibitions of Droananation. As for child aggression related to CP, that is an out and out lie. Children that are NOT spanked are in too short supply to even begin to have a comparative study. If 90% or more of the population has been spanked one need only to look to the nature of the society to see the connection. The more CP the bloodier the society. Larzelere (in press) built on their review by extending the search of peer- reviewed articles to the period 1974 to 1995 plus older articles that met the inclusion criteria. Yeah, and I'd like to see their criteria for choosing and his. The inclusion criteria were designed to exclude studies that were cross-sectional or whose measures emphasized the severity of usage of corporal punishment. Tell us about objectivity, Droany. As soon as you start picking and choosing what you will and won't study you are cherry picking. Only 18 studies were found that both met the two inclusion criteria and limited the sample to children under 13 years of age. Interesting choice. Why leave out those 13 and over? Could it be the conclusions offered could not be supported with them in the demographic? The 8 strongest studies found beneficial outcomes of corporal punishment, usually in 2- to 6-year-olds. Immediate results can be obtained in many ways, including verbal punishment of that age range. I can pound a post in the ground instead of digging a hole, bracing and backfilling with gravel and concrete, and both will be servicable posts....one for a few years as the splintered wood fills with fungus and dry rot...the other for nearly my lifetime, because the wood has not been splintered by brute force pounding. Pretty much the same with kids. And it's pretty much the same in Singapore. If you read some social studies on Singapore you will find there is much going on that is NOT in the best interests of its citizens. Politics is an interesting game there. The 10 other studies were prospective (6) or retrospective (4). Three of them found detrimental outcomes, but only 1 of those 3 made any attempt to exclude abuse from its measure of corporal punishment. Obviously because they knew The Question cannot be answered. One cannot draw a clear line between the two, discipline and damage. Further, none of the 10 studies controlled for the initial level of child misbehavior. Yep...the problem with ALL social studies is they will not be administered as experiments in the physical sciences are....by destructive testing. Can't be. Hence YOUR claims, Droany, and theirs are as empty as you wish to claim mine and the researchers I and others refer to are. The answer to the question is somewhat larger than social science. Outcomes of behavior over a period of time, in the larger social setting, and by the cultures the behaviors and reactions occur in are where the only consideration and policy making need be or should be taken. This seems to be an important methodological problem, since the frequency of every type of discipline response tends to be positively associated with child misbehavior, whether the associations are cross-sectional or longitudinal (Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996; Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, in press). Basically a stupid statement that says the children were not tested by being spanked when they didn't misbehave. Brilliant. Finally, no alternative discipline response in any of the 18 studies was associated with more beneficial child outcomes than was corporal punishment, Beautiful. Madison avenue couldn't improve on the obscurity and obfuscation if they tried. It just says that CP didn't work any better than the alternative. What does THAT prove except you DON'T NEED TO USE CPS TO GET THE SAME RESULTS. whereas 7 alternatives were associated with more detrimental child outcomes, mostly in 2- to 6-year-olds. Notice the careful distancing from what those "alternatives" were. And children in the most helpless age range. At 7, when children are suppposed to have developed abstract reasoning, that is the capacity for accurate cause and effect relationship awaress, they LEAVE THE OLDER DEMOGRAPHIC OUT....now I wonder why? R R R R ...because the kids can NOW get sicker from being hit. Like start chosing to act out themselves, become sneaky, lie, steal, hit their sister behind moms back...etc These reviews suggest that the empirical linkage between nonabusive corporal punishment and aggression comes only from cross-sectional studies, studies of teenagers, Well, we do have this little problem, don't we now? Unless we kill them first, we parents WILL have teenagers one day. I'd say that's a very solid reason for including them IN the study. studies measuring particularly severe forms of corporal punishment, And we know that there have been those here, and certainly in the general population, that consider drawing blood with a belt to NOT be severe, but the parent's right. So including severe CP in a study along with less severe is HONEST research. and, perhaps, studies of punitiveness. In other words, many of the things we argue about here are included in the studies that show bad outcomes from CP. I love that "punitiveness" statement. It slams non-CP but still punishing methods. Which you know I'm against. In other words you are once again posting to support me, while your poor child abused mind things otherwise. This led us to ask how well current societal experiments are working in countries that have outlawed all forms of parental use of corporal punishment. Yep. Now we get to the really good stuff. You will see weaseling that has been the model for Droany for years now. Hot stuff. In 1979, Sweden passed a law prohibiting all corporal punishment by parents. This was hailed as a crucial step in the effort to reduce child abuse (Deley, 1988; Feshbach, 1980; Ziegert, 1983). Several countries have passed similar laws since then (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Austria, and Cyprus), and organizations have formed to advocate against parental corporal punishment throughout the world (e.g., End Physical Punishment of Children [EPOCH]: Radda Barnen, no date). This movement represents one of the most sweeping changes ever advocated by social scientists. In the United States, for example, about 90% of parents have spanked their 3-year-old children in the past year (Straus, 1983; Wauchope & Straus, 1990). Some social scientific research has been used to support the anti-spanking position (e.g., Hyman, 1995; Straus, 1994), but the reviews summarized above have found such support coming primarily from methodologically poor studies. And that is a poorly supported claim. One of the criticisms of one of those works was by a doctor who claimed that because of poor experimental methods (non-destructive of the subjects) they study was invalid. Stupid just like you. Given the inconclusiveness of relevant research and the importance of the issue, it is desirable to know whether child abuse has decreased in Sweden following their 1979 anti-spanking law. Accordingly, this article asks two inter-related questions: (1) To what extent have social scientists evaluated the effect of the 1979 anti-spanking law in Sweden, and (2) what do those evaluations indicate about the effects of the anti-spanking law in reducing child abuse? We also report one finding about Swedish trends in assaults by minors discovered during our study. Literature Search for Evaluations Two procedures were used to find evaluations of the effects of Sweden's anti- spanking law. First, PsycLit was searched from 1974 through June of 1995 for all publications that included "Sweden" or "Swedish" and either "punishment" or "spanking" in their abstracts. Second, Social Sciences Citation Index was used to identify all articles citing Gelles and Edfeldt (1986) through April 1995, because their study reported a well-done survey of Swedish child abuse rates one year after the anti-spanking law was passed. Empirical Evaluations of Sweden's Anti-Spanking Law Five published studies and one unpublished paper were found that included any empirical information relevant for evaluating the 1979 anti-spanking law. Ziegert (1983) published a conceptual, preliminary article on why the law should be effective. His only empirical data was from a Swedish opinion poll showing that the percentage of respondents considering corporal punishment to be necessary had dropped from 53% in 1965 to 35% in 1971 to 26% in 1979 and 1981. In an article comparing Swedish and American use of corporal punishment, Solheim (1982) reported that 26% of Swedish respondents considered corporal punishment necessary in 1978. Like Ziegert (1983), Solheim's (1982) article was mostly nonempirical, discussing such issues as court decisions about corporal punishment in schools, the 1979 law, and expert opinions. Together these two articles show that the decline in support for the necessity of parental corporal punishment in Sweden preceded the 1979 law, and it did not decrease thereafter, at least through 1981. Which does not go to the claimed intent of the author. Interesting. A third article reported the rate of child homicides in various European countries, comparing 1973/1974 with approximately 1987/1988 (Pritchard, 1992). Note that this compared statistics before and after the 1979 law. The Swedish child homicide rate was the sixth lowest of the 17 countries at both time periods. However, it nearly doubled from 1973/1974 to 1986/1987. Sweden's 93% increase in its child homicide rate was the fifth largest percentage increase among the 17 countries. It should also be noted that the rate of accidental baby deaths in Sweden was the lowest of the 17 countries at both time periods. Unlike the child homicide rate, it decreased by 67% between the two time periods, although 10 of the other 16 countries decreased their accidental baby death rates by an even larger percentage. A fourth article compared child abuse rates among university students at one Swedish university compared to one American university as reported in a 1981 survey (Deley, 1988). Because these were retrospective reports, they were child abuse rates during the 1960s and the 1970s as these students were growing up, a time period preceding the 1979 law. The critical question asked whether a spanking had ever left physical marks that lasted for more than 10 minutes. Two percent of the Sweden students reported receiving such physical marks from a spanking, compared to 9.5% of the American students. Although this is far from a representative sample, this suggests that the child abuse rate in Sweden was only 21% of the American child abuse rate in the 1960s and 1970s (i.e., 2.0 divided by 9.5 = .21). The fifth and best study used telephone surveys of a nationally representative sample of Swedish parents to measure the rates of spanking and of child abuse in 1980 (Gelles & Edfeldt, 1986). It used the Conflict Tactics Scale, which was also used to measure the prevalence of spanking and child abuse in two National Family Violence Surveys in the USA (Straus & Gelles, 1986; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Gelles and Edfeldt (1986) compared their 1980 Swedish survey only with the 1975 National Family Violence Survey. They concluded that a smaller percentage of parents were spanking their children in Sweden than in the United States, but that there were no significant differences in child abuse rates. By a telephone survey? Personal surveys are notorious for showing outcomes that are predetermined by those commissioning the survey. We read voice inflection and tone along with pacing, just as we read people's faces, and we respond accordingly. It's a million or more year old survival need. We are very good at responding to others in social context the way we think they want us to. It would have been more appropriate, however, to compare their 1980 Swedish survey with the 1985 National Family Violence Survey in the USA (Straus & Gelles, 1986), which reported a 47% lower rate of child abuse in the United States than in 1975. For one thing, the 1980 Swedish survey was closer to the 1985 USA survey in its method, because both used telephone interviews. In contrast, the 1975 USA survey used face-to-face interviews. Table 1 gives the percentage of Swedish and United States parents reporting the use of various forms of physical aggression in both national surveys in the United States and the national survey in Sweden. In contrast to Gelles & Edfeldt (1986), we report whether the Swedish rate was significantly different from the mean USA rate from both the 1975 and the 1985 surveys. This approach represents a compromise on the issue of which USA survey is the most appropriate comparison, and it assumes that the 1980 rates in the USA might have been halfway between the 1975 and the 1985 rates. Table 1 Prevalence Rates of Various Forms of Physical Child Abuse in the United States and Sweden __________________________________________________ ____________________ United States Sweden Type of Violence 1975 1985 1980 1. Threw things at 5.4% 2.7% 3.6% Down 2. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved 40.5 30.7 49.4*** Lots of things we do with children could be considered any of these three for any number of reasons having little or nothing to do with discipline. 3. Hit (spanked or slapped) 58.2 54.9 27.5*** Very down, you might notice. 4. Kicked, bit, or hit with fist 3.2 1.3 2.2 Lower than the starting figure. 5. Hit with an object (*1) 13.4 9.7 2.4*** Much lower than either of the previous measured years. 6. Beat up 1.3 .6 3.0*** What does "Beat up" mean exactly? And a major issue here, as it was in child homocides, is who was doing the abuse? 7. Threatened with a weapon .1 .2 .4 Too small an incidence to be significant. 8. Used a weapon .1 .2 .4 What is a "weapon?" Very Severe Violence (4, 6-8) 3.6 1.9 4.0* These are of course, comparisons. Not so much of the changes in the same country but skewed invisibly by comparing two countries. Among the missing variables are things such as unemployment rates...a nortorious indicator of change in child abuse rates, influx of immigrants who bring very different child rearing habits...and they of course differ from each other, so which country got which parents with different methods of child rearing they weren't going to let go? Hell, a middle eastern family stabbed their daughter to death in the US for becoming immodestly American. That would be a child fatality but it would have zero to do with the legal or illegal use of CP. __________________________________________________ ______________________ 1 In the United States this item referred to attempted or completed hits. In Sweden, the item referred only to completed hits. The 1975 and 1980 surveys are taken from Gelles & Edfeldt (1986) and the 1985 survey from Straus & Gelles (1986). *p .05, 2-tailed t-test of proportions, comparing the combined USA samples with the Swedish sample. ***p .001, same test. As can be seen, significantly fewer Swedish parents spanked or hit their child with an object, compared to USA parents. Nonetheless, 27% of Swedish parents reported spanking or slapping their child in the past year, reflecting imperfect compliance with the law. Flaccid. R R R R R....in other words, the author lost his erection before penetration........R R R R In contrast, most of the more serious types of physical aggression occurred more often in Sweden one year after passing the anti-spanking law than they did in the United States. Uhuhuhuh...naughty, naughty. They were REPORTED more. And in the US spanking is NOT banned, hence there are two different criteria for what IS abuse in each country...which goes again to the honestly or lack thereof in the authors methods used to make the claims they seem to be making. The rate of beating a child up was three times as high in Sweden as in the United States, the rate of using a weapon was twice as high, and the overall rate of Very Severe Violence was 49% higher in Sweden than the United States average from the 1975 and 1985 surveys. The problem is one of scope. If you have five incidences in one year, and years later have 10, you have a huge increase in percentage. ....NOT the rate, notice. I've noticed the liars here in these ngs also shift from rate to percentage when it suits their lying claim. So a hundred percent increase does NOT accomodate changes in size or characteristics of the demographic being studies. Tsk. Now I can't call that research, or even a study of anything but the pointely biased promotion of an agenda...a spanking compulsives agenda. Except for weapon usage, all of these differences were significantly different using a test of differences between proportions (Downie & Heath, 1974, chap. 13), p .05. In addition, the rate of pushing, grabbing, or shoving was 39% higher in Sweden than the average rate in the United States, I'd like to see the work product, using the actual numbers, and the rates from each to test out that 39%. We have two populations, that are somewhat dissimilar....one does NOT have a spanking ban. The other does. One has a history of violence from it's inception as a nation...the other decidedly doesn't. The one that doesn't would most likely count all incidences and near incidences much more vigorously, against that contrast of a long history of non-violence. p .001. Thus, the rate of spanking was significantly lower in Sweden than in the United States, but the rate of other forms of physical aggression, including child abuse, was significantly higher in Sweden than in the United States. Not only are there the factors I've mentioned, the "count" issue versus the actual incidence of what each of us would call abuse, but the latter alone would heavily skew the results. We don't think of certain physical act agression. The Swedes might. The study and claims are hollow. Because there were so few published studies with relevant empirical data, we also included an unpublished field study by Haeuser (1988) and sought additional data from Swedish sources. As co-founder of EPOCH-USA, an organization advocating the banning of all corporal punishment in the United States, Haeuser (1988) explicitly wanted to "promote positive visibility of this Swedish law in the U.S. and garner U.S. support for the possibility of promoting U.S. parenting norms which avoid physical punishment" (p. 2). Her paper was based on her 1981 and 1988 field visits to Sweden, using extensive interviews of 7 parents and 60 personnel in government, health and human services, and schools. In the summary, she concluded, "Most, if not all, believe the law has not affected the incidence of child abuse" (p. iii). Specifically, she reported that concerns about sexual abuse and youth gang violence had superseded concerns about physical child abuse by 1988. She also reported that she observed toddlers and young children often hitting their parents in her 1988 visit. According to her, "In 1981 both parents and professionals agreed that parents had not . . . found constructive alternatives to physical punishment [within the two years since the law was passed]. For most parents the alternative was yelling and screaming at their children, and some believed this was equally, perhaps more, destructive" (p. 22). Haeuser went on to report that most Swedish parents had developed firmer discipline techniques by 1988. Yep. Can't disagree with that. Tom Gordon took them a model, under auspices of the government, that would and does work if applied. One cannot make people take the training, nor apply it, if they do not wish to. In fact those in resistance to it would be more likely to make it NOT work...rather like old Observer showed us in this ng a couple of years back. Haeuser (1988) concluded that the child abuse rate was lower in Sweden than in the USA based on Swedish police statistics of 6.5 cases of physical child abuse per 1000 children in 1986. Haeuser compared this to a "U. S. rate of 9.2 to 10.7" per 1000 (Haeuser, 1988, p. 34), but acknowledged, "Since the Swedish police data omits child abuse cases known to social services but not warranting police intervention, the actual Swedish incidence rate is probably higher" (p. 34). It's all in what you call abuse. As she just said. In fact, spanking being against the law, it would now be a CRIME stat that police would keep. She's uttering nonsense. However, the American survey that she cited (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect [NCCAN], 1988) indicated that the basis of the rate of 9.2 or 10.7 per 1000 differed from the Swedish police statistic in two ways. First, the USA rate included sexual and emotional abuse as well as physical abuse. Second, the USA rate included not only cases known to police, but also cases known to at least one professional across a wide range of occupations, including those in child protection services, public health, education (schools, daycare centers), hospitals, mental health, and social services. Then she is a poor reseacher. All child abuse stats keep for a national database are delivered by a single agency in the US. CPS in its various forms in various states. The only other reporters are the police...and only in those instances where the criminal justice system is involved in the case. I'm not sure but what those don't go back through CPS for reporting though, so a case is only counted one time, or an abuse is not duplicated in reporting. If limited to only physical abuse, the USA rate was only 4.9 or 5.7 known to at least one of these professionals, depending upon the definition of physical child abuse. If limited to all three kinds of abuse known specifically to police or sheriffs, the USA rate was only 2.2 per 1000 (NCCAN, 1988). If spanking, as it is in Sweden, was against the law, we would be far ahead of Sweden. That IS illegal in Sweden and reported as abuse. The most relevant statistics we have obtained from Sweden are police-record trends in physical abuse of children under 7 years of age (Wittrock, 1992, 1995). Those records showed a 489% increase in the child abuse rate from 1981 to 1994 (see Figure 1). The same police records also indicated a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors (under 15 in Sweden) from 1981 to 1994 (see Figure 2). That would mean that playground spats that included a push or shove, which is obviously counted in other databases, would constitute assualt of minor on minor. Discussion and Conclusions Although the Swedish anti-spanking law was intended to reduce child abuse, the best empirical study since then indicated that the rate of child abuse in Sweden was 49% higher than in the United States one year after the anti- spanking law was passed. "One year after?" Just what did they think would happen? The reporting would have jumped higher than that I would have thought. And, what is never mentioned so far is that there is NO penalty for spanking in Sweden. No stick, and no carrot. I'm stunned they got as much results as they did. Does this mean that the anti-spanking law increased the rate of physical child abuse in Sweden? Deley's (1988) retrospective data indicates that the Swedish physical child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and 1970s. This suggests that the anti-spanking law not only failed to achieve its goal of reducing child abuse, but that the child abuse rate increased from 21% to 149% of the equivalent USA rate, a seven-fold increase relative to the decreasing rate in the United States. Rates. No actual rates...just a percentage of rate change. What garbage. And with a comparison to the US to offset any real attention to data and changes within Sweden. And we saw early what the fatality figures were and how dramatic that made the percentage appear. What was it, 3 killed or five killed. Just ONE more would make it appear to be a hugely significant percentage.....until one looked at the number, and got it that other variables were being ignored. And a child homicide isn't necessarily a parent inflicted murder. We doubt that the increase was actually that substantial, because Deley used a retrospective measure with a small unrepresentative sample. Nonetheless, the available evidence suggests that a sizeable increase in the Swedish child abuse rate occurred around the time of the 1979 anti-spanking law. The other studies indicate no changes in attitudes about corporal punishment nor in child homicides due to the 1979 law. R R R R ......not only lost it, but likely couldn't get it up again with Viagra. In other words they are admitting they really are thinking about and considering only the first year. For a law with NO teeth..no penalty...no payoff either. Was the apparent increase in the Swedish child abuse rate only a temporary increase following their anti-spanking law? More recent data on Swedish child abuse rates would help answer that question. One piece of subsequent data was the 6.5 cases of physical child abuse per 1,000 children in official 1986 Swedish police statistics, which was substantially higher than the 2.2 per 1,000 known to police or sheriffs in the USA. But spanking is a crime there, reflected in that rate. Spanking is NOT a crime in the US so would be counter reflected in the US rate. The other available evidence is the sharp increase in physical child abuse in Swedish police records from 1981 through 1994, along with a similar sharp increase in certain assaults by minors. There is no such sharp increase even by their own offerings here. There is a sharp increase in reporting. And at that it doesn't reflect much in the much smaller society. Other variables could be heavily influencing any changes. Just the immigrant question alone could do it. Why might Sweden experience an increasing child abuse rate and an increase in assaults by minors after outlawing corporal punishment? Haeuser's (1988) description of some parental frustration and yelling in 1981 might indicate an increased risk of escalation to abuse at that time. Bull****. Pure speculation. Haeuser did NOT provide a comprehensive demographic. No ages of parents..for instance. Older parents might be holding out heavily for what they learned and practiced already. Immigrants might be very resistant to change. This is reminiscent of Baumrind's (1973) observation of permissive parents. Compared to authoritative and authoritarian parents, permissive parents were the most likely to report "explosive attacks of rage in which they inflicted more pain or injury upon the child than they had intended. . . . That is reaching. That report is on US parents and children. We are a violent country compared to Sweden. And there are not that many permissive parents to study. I suspect, as in other things where Baumrind interpreted conditions..such as removing the more abusive end of the demographic....the definition of "permissive" is up for grabs. Many spankers rank anyone that doesn't spank as permissive, even when they have well behaved children. What "permissive" should mean, for any useful analysis, is "inattentive." Many parents "permit" their child a very large theater of activity and exploration..yet those children don't exhibit significant behavior problems. In fact they tend to have many fewer because they are so busy with exploring. But the parent could be mislabled as "permissive" really meaning inattentive. Inattentive parents are the problem, and they are the one prone to explosive reactions when the children bother them. Truely permitting parents are delighted at most of the interactions of their children with them. Those are considered social exploration. Permissive parents apparently became violent because they felt that they could neither control the child's behavior nor tolerate its effect upon themselves" (Baumrind, 1973, p. 35). Inattentive parents. Permissive is being misused in this context. Permissive parents used spanking less than did either authoritative or authoritarian parents. Yep. They are inattentive. It makes them angry when a child interfers with them...and they go for controlling instead of redirecting and being with the child. Classic stuff. So it could be that the prohibition of all spanking eliminates a type of mild spanking that prevents further escalation of aggression within discipline incidents (see Patterson's [1982] coercive family process). It could be said, but it would be bull**** to do so. Notice the title of the citation. "coercive family process?" Tells it all, now doesn't it. Haeuser's (1988) report suggests that Swedish parents later developed new, firm discipline responses that reduced escalations to yelling and possibly to child abuse. But adequate data on the resulting child abuse rates are lacking. Yep, yet these twits make assumptions in the face of that lack. In conclusion, the available Swedish data indicate that we cannot reduce child abuse just by mandating that parents stop using corporal punishment. We cannot reduce reporting of abuse. That is going to go up whereever CP is made illegal and abusive. It's not rocket science...just simple logic. If taking my neighbors apples isn't illegal he can't report me for breaking the law. If the next day there IS a law passed making it illegal, and I'm in the habit of taking those apples and thinking that way habitually and continue to do it, suddenly there is going to be reports of an apple stealing crimewave in my neighborhood. In fact I would surmise throughout the jurisdiction of that new law. It might take some months, even years, to reduce the reporting of this crime....by it's actual reduction. FOR IT WAS NOT A CRIME BEFORE. Parents also need new, effective techniques to replace corporal punishment if it is to be outlawed. Yep...but it takes more than just the information. It takes practice, and it takes a commitment to make it work. Without either nothing will change. Except there WILL be a reducting in actual abuse...just as Sweden experienced...despite the reports. It is even possible that mild corporal punishment may play an important role in preventing escalation to abuse for some parents. Ah yes, one of the spanking compulsives favorites. It ranks right up there with spanking is not hitting and similar Cargo Cult thinking. The other surprise is that there has been so little empirical evaluation of the effects of Sweden's anti-spanking law. That is because it was not meant to be an enforceable law with penalties. It was meant to make a moral statement to the population. Apparently it's working too. I don't think that would work in the US. We have a different history and culture. Very. I am looking sadly forward to the day when we have such a law in this country, but with teeth to make it work. I don't want it, but I can see plainly, by examples such as you, Droany, that the resistance to gentle child rearing, the perverse NEED to hurt and humiliate others weaker than one's self, is too strong a force in our country to be stopped any other way. But I'll keep trying. Read Gordon. Perhaps it has seemed so obvious that eliminating parental spanking would reduce the child abuse rate that people have felt that no evaluation was needed. That would be the mindset of a nation with the culture that Sweden has. It was only in recent years they accepted immigrants. If so, this summary of available evidence should shake us out of our premature complacency. The role of parental discipline responses in preventing aggression in parent and child is surprisingly complex (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Patterson, 1982; Snyder & Patterson, 1995). We need better research to understand the complexities involved in parental discipline, including its relationship to child abuse. We need to discriminate effective from counterproductive forms of discipline responses, including the role of different forms of corporal punishment in increasing or decreasing the risk of child abuse. We also need better evaluations of policies designed to change parental discipline, given that the effects of the Swedish anti-spanking law seem to have had exactly the opposite effect of its intention, at least in the short term. End include Nearly total nonsense, from start to conclusion. Poor logic. Flawed in assumption and method. To draw the stated conclusions from the cited research and surveys is preposterous. But it's just your style Droananator. Just your style. R R R R R Kane Subject: Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case From: Doan Date: 8/2/2004 6:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: But we know that Sweden is perfect! Swedish parents don't spank, they just yell! ;-) Dear dear Droananator, There was an increase in yelling. We do not know if all who stopped spanking turned to yelling. It is what the anti-spanking zealotS promoted! The info is not clear, and the message is not what you claim it is. You can close your eyes and shut you ears. That does not change the fact! :-) Given the training that was offered they certainly didn't have to yell. But the training was not mandatory. It has been 25 years! However, you compulsives can't seem to do other than assume that loss of one way of hurting and humiliating a child has to be replaced with another for "discipline," now don't you? It has been 25 years! Admit it...it's about brute force parenting, not loving, gentle supportive parenting. It has been 25 years! Let us know when you have the real answer to The Question. LOL! Showing your stupidity again, Kane0! Where is the line that marks the boundary between CP for discipline and CP that injures? You don't know? :-) Doan Kane Doan On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote: Canada is ahead of the USA in its treatment of children, but Canmada isn't perfect either. Thanks for the post. LaVonne Fern5827 wrote: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Calgar...09/532794.html Fri, July 9, 2004 Judge OKs spanking Dad's actions ruled reasonable By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN Spanking his eight-year-old son after the boy threatened to "grab a lawyer" and sue him wasn't a criminal act by a city dad, a judge ruled yesterday. Judge Bob Wilkins said James Dean Boyd exercised reasonable force when he disciplined his son 19 months ago. "The force used by the accused falls within the scope enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada and was 'a minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature,'" Wilkins said. "The action of the accused in spanking his son was for corrective purposes." Police were called by Boyd's ex-wife after she discovered bruising on the child's bum after he was returned to her Nov. 23, 2002, following an access visit. Defence lawyer Joel Livergant argued the bruising occurred while the child was tobogganing, but Wilkins said without medical evidence, he could not say what caused the injury. Boyd admitted spanking the child three times on the behind for disciplinary reasons after the child had acted up and told the father to "shut up." The incident occurred at Boyd's brother's home and involved a dispute between the child, whom Wilkins did not identify by name, and his cousins. The judge noted the boy stood on stairs, yelling "I hate this place, I hate you, I'm going to grab a lawyer, I'm going to sue you all and I'm going to live in a foster home." "This outburst was followed by the child telling his father to 'shut up,'" Wilkins said. "I accept his explanation that the spanking was done for corrective purposes, as a last resort and was not done out of anger, maliciousness or revenge," the judge said. Wilkins said the Criminal Code permits persons in authority to use force for discipline as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. He said Boyd's actions were intended to be for educative or corrective purposes and the force used was not excessive. Outside court, a relieved Boyd said it's important to have legislation that protects a parent's right to discipline a child. "It just reinforces, or gives the parent the opportunity to reinforce a verbal command with a reasonable amount of force," he said. "To let young people know ... there's a consequence for their actions." |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case
id like to see the dad beat 3 times....lol id pay to see that lol....why
not let parents get it....if they misbehave...they should get it too...and dont tell me they shouldnt cause they're older...they should know better that to act up..... Olive Say 10 "I'm a simple kid who takes over." -Myself (2004) |
Anyone know how old James Dean Boyd is?
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com