Catching up with Straus

http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Release date: October 6, 2004
Contact: Elaine Justice, 404-727-0643, or
April Bogle,404-712-8713


ATLANTA - OCTOBER 6, 2004 - Despite an overall decline in the
duration, frequency and severity of corporal punishment during the past
40 years, nearly all toddlers - regardless of religious faith or
ethnicity -- are spanked by their parents an average of three times per
week., according to Murray A. Straus, professor of sociology and
co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New
Hampshire.

Straus shared highlights of his more than three decades of research at
the Family Forum Series event, "Spare the Rod? Legal and Religious
Challenges in Raising Children of the Book," Oct. 6, at Emory Law
School. The Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion (CISR)
hosted the event.

Monica Kaufman, WSB-TV anchor, opened the event with a personal
perspective on corporal punishment, based on her childhood, her role as
a mother, and her work as a reporter covering child abuse cases. "I
don't understand why you have to study to get a driver's license,
but anyone can have a child," she said.

Straus pointed out that approximately 55 percent of parents in 1999
agreed "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good
hard spanking," down from nearly 95 percent of parents in 1968. In
addition, parents now stop spanking earlier - 55 percent were hitting
13-year-old-children, versus 35 percent in 1995 who spanked children of
this age. Severity has decreased - there is a decline in the use of
belts, hairbrushes and paddles, and the number of times per day, week
or month also has declined.

Yet prevalence of spanking has remained high: nearly all children have
been spanked in their lives because 94 percent of parents spank
toddlers.

Straus' research, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health,
includes children from birth to age 17 from some 20 countries.

Spanking remains prevalent even though research shows it is not more
effective in correcting behavior than other methods and over the
long-term and has harmful side effects. Children ages two and three
repeat their misbehavior within 5.5 hours of receiving corporal
punishment, versus 9.5 hours if they were disciplined with reasoning
only. One-year-olds who receive corporal punishment from their mothers
are compliant just over 50 percent of the time, versus a nearly 70
percent compliance rate from children who little or no corporal
punishment.

"If you compare the effectiveness of corporal and non-corporal
punishment, they both are highly effective immediately after being
administered and both have a low-level of effectiveness after a few
hours or days of being administered. But over the long-term of months
and years, corporal punishment tends to make behavior worse and has
harmful side effects, such as increasing the probability of delinquency
as a child and depression as an adult , while non-corporal punishment
is more effective and has beneficial side effects," said Straus.

He points out that there is a direct correlation between the frequency
of spanking and an increase in anti-social behavior in the two years
after the year in which the spanking occurred. For example,
Euro-American children ages six through nine who were spanked three
times per week showed an increase of more than 15 percent in anti
social behavior versus a decrease in antisocial behavior for those
children not spanked. Minority children who were spanked showed an
increase in approximately 12 percent in anti-social behavior in the two
years after the year spanking was measured.

A main focus of Straus's talk was on the benefits of not spanking. He
presented research results showing that children who are not spanked
are less likely to:

* hit other children
* hit their parents
* become juvenile delinquents
* become criminal adults
* use domestic violence
* abuse children

Straus also shows that children who are not spanked have fewer social
and psychological problems, such as depression, drug use and suicide.

"What would a world be like without spanking?" Straus asked
"Comparing adults who were not spanked with those who received a high
level of corporal punishment, the not spanked were 47 percent more
likely to graduate from college, 46 percent were less likely to be
seriously depressed, 68 percent were less likely to hit their spouse,
and 67 percent were less likely to physically abuse their own
children."

Religious and legal scholars commented on Straus' findings at the
conclusion of his remarks. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, Emory professor of
law, explained that the Jewish tradition accepts corporal punishment
with specific guidelines. "The duty of parents in the Jewish
tradition is to prepare their children for adulthood. Hitting is an
acceptable form of discipline for parents to use with their own
children if the child has not yet reached adolescence, if the situation
requires the teaching of a lesson, and if the parent objectively
decides that this form of discipline will provide that lesson."

Broyde added that he feels it is wrong to rely on statistics alone when
determining the value of corporal punishment. "Each situation has its
own reality - it is child specific and adult specific," he said.

The Reverend Dr. John Westerhoff, an Episcopal priest and
theologian-in-residence at St Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta,
espoused his understanding of the Christian perspective on corporal
punishment. First, he pointed out, the origin of the word
"discipline" derives from the Latin verb dicere, which means "to
learn."

"The first and primary role of parents in the discipline of their
children is that of role models...how we discipline ourselves and our
children needs to be consistent with the character traits of God, such
as God gives us what we need not deserve, God's justice is for
reconciliation not retribution," he said, adding, "Discipline must
not be confused with punishment: discipline is positive, while
punishment is negative."

Since anger, aggression and violence are among the most frequent
side-effects of punishment, Westerhoff recommends instead setting
appropriate boundaries for children. "Children need reasonable,
consistent limits that they participate in shaping, limits that are
modeled by their parents rather than shaped by rewards and punishment
for compliance," he said. "They also need to be affirmed and loved
as persons of dignity as they learn to be disciplined disciples."

Plemon T. El-Amin, Masjid Imam of the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam,
offered the Islamic perspective on corporal punishment. First and
foremost, he pointed out, "A child is a trust from God who doesn't
belong to parents, he comes through parents, and therefore we should
treat him as a property of God in a most sacred way."

Within this spirit of compassion and caring, El-Amin explained that
Islam sanctions three ways to correct children's behavior: first,
admonish verbally; second, isolate or restrict; third, use corporal
correction that does not bruise or scar and is given with intent to
remedy or help.

"When my grandparents said to me, 'This hurts me more than it's
going to hurt you,' they really meant it," El-Amin said, adding
that he knew his grandmother's spankings were not conducted out of
anger. "She would make an appointment for me to come by her house on
Saturday for my spanking. I knew her love was great. Parents need to
ask themselves if they are correcting behavior because the child is
bothering them, or because if they don't, this behavior is going to
become a problem for the child."

He further explained that in the Koran, the word for striking
physically is also used for striking the intellect or the soul. "The
best method of discipline is to strike the soul, or the consciousness
of the child."

Trenny Stovall, director of the Dekalb County Child Advocacy Center,
offered her legal perspective on the issue by explaining that the State
of Georgia allows corporal punishment, but that children are to be
protected from excessive or unreasonable physical injury by the Cruelty
to Children Act and the Family Violence Act. These protections prove
challenging because they can be very broadly defined in court, she
said, but even more inconsistent is the application of protection to
children who live in diverse communities. "Many of our residents come
from countries where things such as mutilation of girls, hot coins
being placed on skin, and binding children so they won't eat after a
certain time, are cultural norms. We try to explain that in the United
States, this is excessive and unacceptable. We've had pretty good
success at teaching parents to stop this form of punishment."

Karen B. Baynes, a former Fulton County juvenile court associate judge
who now serves as deputy director for the Carl Vinson Institute of
Government at the University of Georgia, says that most people believe
it is their inherent right to discipline their children as they see
fit, and that they believe the law has gone too far in limiting this
right. "It is tough to determine when the law should step in and then
if we do remove children from the home, what is the plan to help
them?"

Martha A. Fineman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory,
challenged corporal punishment from a human rights perspective.
"Children are people, and they as much as adults are covered by
existing human rights treaties and are entitled to special
provisions," she said.

Fineman pointed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which calls for children to be equal with adults but given
special attention from the state because they are vulnerable. (The
United States and Somalia are the only two U.N. member countries that
have not adopted the Convention.)

"The concept of 'best interest of the child' should be the
primary consideration in all actions taken by adults concerning
children. This means that the interest of parents or the state are not
to be considered as primary or of superior importance," she said.

Further, Fineman added, "Ideally the state in policymaking would find
it necessary to conduct an impact analysis before making decisions that
affect children's interests. This idea that there should be some
mechanism to guarantee that children's interest have equal value in
decision-making is quite a radical thought."

Fineman contrasted the equal-rights gains women have made to those of
children. " Battery of intimate partners is no longer tolerated or
ignored; however similar evolution along egalitarian lines for children
has not kept pace. Battery of children by parents is still seen as
necessary 'discipline' by many, perhaps the result of misguided
ignorance, but certainly to be constitutionally tolerated or ignored
unless it passes over some high threshold on the way to abuse."

Fineman challenged the United States to adopt the UN Convention as a
remedy. "Our constitutional tradition has long recognized parental
rights and protected parental prerogatives - it used privacy to
shield parental practices detrimental to the well-being of children. By
contrast, the child protected by the Convention has the right to
'physical integrity' and requires the state to take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence while in the
are of parents or legal guardians."



###






http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

In spite of all the decades of research showing NO benefit of corporal
punishment over alternative methods, and showing continued potential for
harm over alternative methods, parents continue to fight for their
perceived "right" to hit their children in the name of discipline.

Martha Fineman's quote that you provide (with appropriate attributes)
needs continual consideration, by parents, by legislators, and by US
citizens. Children should be given rights equal with adults but with
additional protection because they are vulnerable. Does allowing
children to be physically assaulted provide additional protection
because they are vulnerable? I think not.

The best interest of the child should always been the primary
consideration when any action is taken by adults concerning children.
The best interest of the child should superceed parental or governmental
interests. How can anyone argue that the best interests of the children
are served when children are hit and hurt in the name of discipline?
When children are not afforded the most basic legal protection that
every adult in US society enjoys? When there is no justification for
denying children this basic right of protection, other than parental choice?

LaVonne



0:- wrote:
http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Release date: October 6, 2004
Contact: Elaine Justice, 404-727-0643, or
April Bogle,404-712-8713


ATLANTA - OCTOBER 6, 2004 - Despite an overall decline in the
duration, frequency and severity of corporal punishment during the past
40 years, nearly all toddlers - regardless of religious faith or
ethnicity -- are spanked by their parents an average of three times per
week., according to Murray A. Straus, professor of sociology and
co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New
Hampshire.

Straus shared highlights of his more than three decades of research at
the Family Forum Series event, "Spare the Rod? Legal and Religious
Challenges in Raising Children of the Book," Oct. 6, at Emory Law
School. The Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion (CISR)
hosted the event.

Monica Kaufman, WSB-TV anchor, opened the event with a personal
perspective on corporal punishment, based on her childhood, her role as
a mother, and her work as a reporter covering child abuse cases. "I
don't understand why you have to study to get a driver's license,
but anyone can have a child," she said.

Straus pointed out that approximately 55 percent of parents in 1999
agreed "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good
hard spanking," down from nearly 95 percent of parents in 1968. In
addition, parents now stop spanking earlier - 55 percent were hitting
13-year-old-children, versus 35 percent in 1995 who spanked children of
this age. Severity has decreased - there is a decline in the use of
belts, hairbrushes and paddles, and the number of times per day, week
or month also has declined.

Yet prevalence of spanking has remained high: nearly all children have
been spanked in their lives because 94 percent of parents spank
toddlers.

Straus' research, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health,
includes children from birth to age 17 from some 20 countries.

Spanking remains prevalent even though research shows it is not more
effective in correcting behavior than other methods and over the
long-term and has harmful side effects. Children ages two and three
repeat their misbehavior within 5.5 hours of receiving corporal
punishment, versus 9.5 hours if they were disciplined with reasoning
only. One-year-olds who receive corporal punishment from their mothers
are compliant just over 50 percent of the time, versus a nearly 70
percent compliance rate from children who little or no corporal
punishment.

"If you compare the effectiveness of corporal and non-corporal
punishment, they both are highly effective immediately after being
administered and both have a low-level of effectiveness after a few
hours or days of being administered. But over the long-term of months
and years, corporal punishment tends to make behavior worse and has
harmful side effects, such as increasing the probability of delinquency
as a child and depression as an adult , while non-corporal punishment
is more effective and has beneficial side effects," said Straus.

He points out that there is a direct correlation between the frequency
of spanking and an increase in anti-social behavior in the two years
after the year in which the spanking occurred. For example,
Euro-American children ages six through nine who were spanked three
times per week showed an increase of more than 15 percent in anti
social behavior versus a decrease in antisocial behavior for those
children not spanked. Minority children who were spanked showed an
increase in approximately 12 percent in anti-social behavior in the two
years after the year spanking was measured.

A main focus of Straus's talk was on the benefits of not spanking. He
presented research results showing that children who are not spanked
are less likely to:

* hit other children
* hit their parents
* become juvenile delinquents
* become criminal adults
* use domestic violence
* abuse children

Straus also shows that children who are not spanked have fewer social
and psychological problems, such as depression, drug use and suicide.

"What would a world be like without spanking?" Straus asked
"Comparing adults who were not spanked with those who received a high
level of corporal punishment, the not spanked were 47 percent more
likely to graduate from college, 46 percent were less likely to be
seriously depressed, 68 percent were less likely to hit their spouse,
and 67 percent were less likely to physically abuse their own
children."

Religious and legal scholars commented on Straus' findings at the
conclusion of his remarks. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, Emory professor of
law, explained that the Jewish tradition accepts corporal punishment
with specific guidelines. "The duty of parents in the Jewish
tradition is to prepare their children for adulthood. Hitting is an
acceptable form of discipline for parents to use with their own
children if the child has not yet reached adolescence, if the situation
requires the teaching of a lesson, and if the parent objectively
decides that this form of discipline will provide that lesson."

Broyde added that he feels it is wrong to rely on statistics alone when
determining the value of corporal punishment. "Each situation has its
own reality - it is child specific and adult specific," he said.

The Reverend Dr. John Westerhoff, an Episcopal priest and
theologian-in-residence at St Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta,
espoused his understanding of the Christian perspective on corporal
punishment. First, he pointed out, the origin of the word
"discipline" derives from the Latin verb dicere, which means "to
learn."

"The first and primary role of parents in the discipline of their
children is that of role models...how we discipline ourselves and our
children needs to be consistent with the character traits of God, such
as God gives us what we need not deserve, God's justice is for
reconciliation not retribution," he said, adding, "Discipline must
not be confused with punishment: discipline is positive, while
punishment is negative."

Since anger, aggression and violence are among the most frequent
side-effects of punishment, Westerhoff recommends instead setting
appropriate boundaries for children. "Children need reasonable,
consistent limits that they participate in shaping, limits that are
modeled by their parents rather than shaped by rewards and punishment
for compliance," he said. "They also need to be affirmed and loved
as persons of dignity as they learn to be disciplined disciples."

Plemon T. El-Amin, Masjid Imam of the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam,
offered the Islamic perspective on corporal punishment. First and
foremost, he pointed out, "A child is a trust from God who doesn't
belong to parents, he comes through parents, and therefore we should
treat him as a property of God in a most sacred way."

Within this spirit of compassion and caring, El-Amin explained that
Islam sanctions three ways to correct children's behavior: first,
admonish verbally; second, isolate or restrict; third, use corporal
correction that does not bruise or scar and is given with intent to
remedy or help.

"When my grandparents said to me, 'This hurts me more than it's
going to hurt you,' they really meant it," El-Amin said, adding
that he knew his grandmother's spankings were not conducted out of
anger. "She would make an appointment for me to come by her house on
Saturday for my spanking. I knew her love was great. Parents need to
ask themselves if they are correcting behavior because the child is
bothering them, or because if they don't, this behavior is going to
become a problem for the child."

He further explained that in the Koran, the word for striking
physically is also used for striking the intellect or the soul. "The
best method of discipline is to strike the soul, or the consciousness
of the child."

Trenny Stovall, director of the Dekalb County Child Advocacy Center,
offered her legal perspective on the issue by explaining that the State
of Georgia allows corporal punishment, but that children are to be
protected from excessive or unreasonable physical injury by the Cruelty
to Children Act and the Family Violence Act. These protections prove
challenging because they can be very broadly defined in court, she
said, but even more inconsistent is the application of protection to
children who live in diverse communities. "Many of our residents come
from countries where things such as mutilation of girls, hot coins
being placed on skin, and binding children so they won't eat after a
certain time, are cultural norms. We try to explain that in the United
States, this is excessive and unacceptable. We've had pretty good
success at teaching parents to stop this form of punishment."

Karen B. Baynes, a former Fulton County juvenile court associate judge
who now serves as deputy director for the Carl Vinson Institute of
Government at the University of Georgia, says that most people believe
it is their inherent right to discipline their children as they see
fit, and that they believe the law has gone too far in limiting this
right. "It is tough to determine when the law should step in and then
if we do remove children from the home, what is the plan to help
them?"

Martha A. Fineman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory,
challenged corporal punishment from a human rights perspective.
"Children are people, and they as much as adults are covered by
existing human rights treaties and are entitled to special
provisions," she said.

Fineman pointed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which calls for children to be equal with adults but given
special attention from the state because they are vulnerable. (The
United States and Somalia are the only two U.N. member countries that
have not adopted the Convention.)

"The concept of 'best interest of the child' should be the
primary consideration in all actions taken by adults concerning
children. This means that the interest of parents or the state are not
to be considered as primary or of superior importance," she said.

Further, Fineman added, "Ideally the state in policymaking would find
it necessary to conduct an impact analysis before making decisions that
affect children's interests. This idea that there should be some
mechanism to guarantee that children's interest have equal value in
decision-making is quite a radical thought."

Fineman contrasted the equal-rights gains women have made to those of
children. " Battery of intimate partners is no longer tolerated or
ignored; however similar evolution along egalitarian lines for children
has not kept pace. Battery of children by parents is still seen as
necessary 'discipline' by many, perhaps the result of misguided
ignorance, but certainly to be constitutionally tolerated or ignored
unless it passes over some high threshold on the way to abuse."

Fineman challenged the United States to adopt the UN Convention as a
remedy. "Our constitutional tradition has long recognized parental
rights and protected parental prerogatives - it used privacy to
shield parental practices detrimental to the well-being of children. By
contrast, the child protected by the Convention has the right to
'physical integrity' and requires the state to take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence while in the
are of parents or legal guardians."



###






http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

LaVonne:

Do you consider yourself to be on the extrerme end of LIBERALISM?

After you raised your kids were you one of those big fat women
so ugly that no man would touch them, so they decide to be Lesbians?

Just wondering whether you are self aware about your fruity
Berkeleyesque kookery.

You are so out of touch with mainstream that I
can imagine that lots of mainstream views confuse you.

Are you actually a Socialist, and of not, do you
view Socialism with any disdain or concern?

Are you an heir to the big (Multinational)
Minneapolis estate by your name?

How long ago did you know that Kane had actually
worked for the STATE of Oregon as a Foster site webmaster?

Please try that stuff again where you pretend that
your personal politics and your career choices
do not severely guide your views on a myriad of
issues such as this.

Hasn't KANE mentioned to you that NAMBLA preaches
that children should the same legal rights as adults?
Apparently they take a great interest in Children having
full legal rights to CONSENT to sex with older gay men.

Hey, since the last time you posted, there has been
a flood of news stories about Foster and adoptive PEDERASTY.
It seems the notion of gays and Lesbians being "harmless"
when it comes to child abuse has been more than shattered.

Please also remember that the woman who killed Logan Marr
was a rabid believer in the Anti-spanking agenda.

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
In spite of all the decades of research showing NO benefit of corporal
punishment over alternative methods, and showing continued potential for
harm over alternative methods, parents continue to fight for their
perceived "right" to hit their children in the name of discipline.

Martha Fineman's quote that you provide (with appropriate attributes)
needs continual consideration, by parents, by legislators, and by US
citizens. Children should be given rights equal with adults but with
additional protection because they are vulnerable. Does allowing
children to be physically assaulted provide additional protection
because they are vulnerable? I think not.

The best interest of the child should always been the primary
consideration when any action is taken by adults concerning children.
The best interest of the child should superceed parental or governmental
interests. How can anyone argue that the best interests of the children
are served when children are hit and hurt in the name of discipline?
When children are not afforded the most basic legal protection that
every adult in US society enjoys? When there is no justification for
denying children this basic right of protection, other than parental choice?

LaVonne



0:- wrote:
http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Release date: October 6, 2004
Contact: Elaine Justice, 404-727-0643, or
April Bogle,404-712-8713


ATLANTA - OCTOBER 6, 2004 - Despite an overall decline in the
duration, frequency and severity of corporal punishment during the past
40 years, nearly all toddlers - regardless of religious faith or
ethnicity -- are spanked by their parents an average of three times per
week., according to Murray A. Straus, professor of sociology and
co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New
Hampshire.

Straus shared highlights of his more than three decades of research at
the Family Forum Series event, "Spare the Rod? Legal and Religious
Challenges in Raising Children of the Book," Oct. 6, at Emory Law
School. The Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion (CISR)
hosted the event.

Monica Kaufman, WSB-TV anchor, opened the event with a personal
perspective on corporal punishment, based on her childhood, her role as
a mother, and her work as a reporter covering child abuse cases. "I
don't understand why you have to study to get a driver's license,
but anyone can have a child," she said.

Straus pointed out that approximately 55 percent of parents in 1999
agreed "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good
hard spanking," down from nearly 95 percent of parents in 1968. In
addition, parents now stop spanking earlier - 55 percent were hitting
13-year-old-children, versus 35 percent in 1995 who spanked children of
this age. Severity has decreased - there is a decline in the use of
belts, hairbrushes and paddles, and the number of times per day, week
or month also has declined.

Yet prevalence of spanking has remained high: nearly all children have
been spanked in their lives because 94 percent of parents spank
toddlers.

Straus' research, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health,
includes children from birth to age 17 from some 20 countries.

Spanking remains prevalent even though research shows it is not more
effective in correcting behavior than other methods and over the
long-term and has harmful side effects. Children ages two and three
repeat their misbehavior within 5.5 hours of receiving corporal
punishment, versus 9.5 hours if they were disciplined with reasoning
only. One-year-olds who receive corporal punishment from their mothers
are compliant just over 50 percent of the time, versus a nearly 70
percent compliance rate from children who little or no corporal
punishment.

"If you compare the effectiveness of corporal and non-corporal
punishment, they both are highly effective immediately after being
administered and both have a low-level of effectiveness after a few
hours or days of being administered. But over the long-term of months
and years, corporal punishment tends to make behavior worse and has
harmful side effects, such as increasing the probability of delinquency
as a child and depression as an adult , while non-corporal punishment
is more effective and has beneficial side effects," said Straus.

He points out that there is a direct correlation between the frequency
of spanking and an increase in anti-social behavior in the two years
after the year in which the spanking occurred. For example,
Euro-American children ages six through nine who were spanked three
times per week showed an increase of more than 15 percent in anti
social behavior versus a decrease in antisocial behavior for those
children not spanked. Minority children who were spanked showed an
increase in approximately 12 percent in anti-social behavior in the two
years after the year spanking was measured.

A main focus of Straus's talk was on the benefits of not spanking. He
presented research results showing that children who are not spanked
are less likely to:

* hit other children
* hit their parents
* become juvenile delinquents
* become criminal adults
* use domestic violence
* abuse children

Straus also shows that children who are not spanked have fewer social
and psychological problems, such as depression, drug use and suicide.

"What would a world be like without spanking?" Straus asked
"Comparing adults who were not spanked with those who received a high
level of corporal punishment, the not spanked were 47 percent more
likely to graduate from college, 46 percent were less likely to be
seriously depressed, 68 percent were less likely to hit their spouse,
and 67 percent were less likely to physically abuse their own
children."

Religious and legal scholars commented on Straus' findings at the
conclusion of his remarks. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, Emory professor of
law, explained that the Jewish tradition accepts corporal punishment
with specific guidelines. "The duty of parents in the Jewish
tradition is to prepare their children for adulthood. Hitting is an
acceptable form of discipline for parents to use with their own
children if the child has not yet reached adolescence, if the situation
requires the teaching of a lesson, and if the parent objectively
decides that this form of discipline will provide that lesson."

Broyde added that he feels it is wrong to rely on statistics alone when
determining the value of corporal punishment. "Each situation has its
own reality - it is child specific and adult specific," he said.

The Reverend Dr. John Westerhoff, an Episcopal priest and
theologian-in-residence at St Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta,
espoused his understanding of the Christian perspective on corporal
punishment. First, he pointed out, the origin of the word
"discipline" derives from the Latin verb dicere, which means "to
learn."

"The first and primary role of parents in the discipline of their
children is that of role models...how we discipline ourselves and our
children needs to be consistent with the character traits of God, such
as God gives us what we need not deserve, God's justice is for
reconciliation not retribution," he said, adding, "Discipline must
not be confused with punishment: discipline is positive, while
punishment is negative."

Since anger, aggression and violence are among the most frequent
side-effects of punishment, Westerhoff recommends instead setting
appropriate boundaries for children. "Children need reasonable,
consistent limits that they participate in shaping, limits that are
modeled by their parents rather than shaped by rewards and punishment
for compliance," he said. "They also need to be affirmed and loved
as persons of dignity as they learn to be disciplined disciples."

Plemon T. El-Amin, Masjid Imam of the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam,
offered the Islamic perspective on corporal punishment. First and
foremost, he pointed out, "A child is a trust from God who doesn't
belong to parents, he comes through parents, and therefore we should
treat him as a property of God in a most sacred way."

Within this spirit of compassion and caring, El-Amin explained that
Islam sanctions three ways to correct children's behavior: first,
admonish verbally; second, isolate or restrict; third, use corporal
correction that does not bruise or scar and is given with intent to
remedy or help.

"When my grandparents said to me, 'This hurts me more than it's
going to hurt you,' they really meant it," El-Amin said, adding
that he knew his grandmother's spankings were not conducted out of
anger. "She would make an appointment for me to come by her house on
Saturday for my spanking. I knew her love was great. Parents need to
ask themselves if they are correcting behavior because the child is
bothering them, or because if they don't, this behavior is going to
become a problem for the child."

He further explained that in the Koran, the word for striking
physically is also used for striking the intellect or the soul. "The
best method of discipline is to strike the soul, or the consciousness
of the child."

Trenny Stovall, director of the Dekalb County Child Advocacy Center,
offered her legal perspective on the issue by explaining that the State
of Georgia allows corporal punishment, but that children are to be
protected from excessive or unreasonable physical injury by the Cruelty
to Children Act and the Family Violence Act. These protections prove
challenging because they can be very broadly defined in court, she
said, but even more inconsistent is the application of protection to
children who live in diverse communities. "Many of our residents come
from countries where things such as mutilation of girls, hot coins
being placed on skin, and binding children so they won't eat after a
certain time, are cultural norms. We try to explain that in the United
States, this is excessive and unacceptable. We've had pretty good
success at teaching parents to stop this form of punishment."

Karen B. Baynes, a former Fulton County juvenile court associate judge
who now serves as deputy director for the Carl Vinson Institute of
Government at the University of Georgia, says that most people believe
it is their inherent right to discipline their children as they see
fit, and that they believe the law has gone too far in limiting this
right. "It is tough to determine when the law should step in and then
if we do remove children from the home, what is the plan to help
them?"

Martha A. Fineman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory,
challenged corporal punishment from a human rights perspective.
"Children are people, and they as much as adults are covered by
existing human rights treaties and are entitled to special
provisions," she said.

Fineman pointed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which calls for children to be equal with adults but given
special attention from the state because they are vulnerable. (The
United States and Somalia are the only two U.N. member countries that
have not adopted the Convention.)

"The concept of 'best interest of the child' should be the
primary consideration in all actions taken by adults concerning
children. This means that the interest of parents or the state are not
to be considered as primary or of superior importance," she said.

Further, Fineman added, "Ideally the state in policymaking would find
it necessary to conduct an impact analysis before making decisions that
affect children's interests. This idea that there should be some
mechanism to guarantee that children's interest have equal value in
decision-making is quite a radical thought."

Fineman contrasted the equal-rights gains women have made to those of
children. " Battery of intimate partners is no longer tolerated or
ignored; however similar evolution along egalitarian lines for children
has not kept pace. Battery of children by parents is still seen as
necessary 'discipline' by many, perhaps the result of misguided
ignorance, but certainly to be constitutionally tolerated or ignored
unless it passes over some high threshold on the way to abuse."

Fineman challenged the United States to adopt the UN Convention as a
remedy. "Our constitutional tradition has long recognized parental
rights and protected parental prerogatives - it used privacy to
shield parental practices detrimental to the well-being of children. By
contrast, the child protected by the Convention has the right to
'physical integrity' and requires the state to take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence while in the
are of parents or legal guardians."



###






http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Greegor wrote:
LaVonne:

Do you consider yourself to be on the extrerme end of LIBERALISM?

Liberals don't spank?

After you raised your kids were you one of those big fat women
so ugly that no man would touch them, so they decide to be Lesbians?

You seem to have an obsession about body shape, Greg. You do
understand that makes you a bigot by making one's appearance a matter
of their value.

"Decide to be Lesbians?" Please explain how that takes place and any
proof you have for your explaination.

And R R R RR.. what would the timeline you suggest have to do with
reality? My you are a strange little boy.

Just wondering whether you are self aware about your fruity
Berkeleyesque kookery.

I wonder if you are 'self' aware of your extreme bigotry?

You are so out of touch with mainstream that I
can imagine that lots of mainstream views confuse you.

The mainstream, as Straus pointed out, is not longer in favor of
spanking children. Even those that do are chosing to do much less of it
these days. And for fewer years of the child's life.

Interesting how people are waking up to MY values on this
matter...remember until about a year ago I was adamantly against laws
against spanking and advocated for more education and social moral
sanctions against it.

Yet, here, without the laws for parents changing (though schools are
giving up paddling more and more) we have the huge drop in support for
spanking...from around 98% of the population by survey used to be for
it, to now around 50%.

I'd say, Greg, the main stream is no longer in the main.

State after state, country after country, has either banned paddling,
or both school and parental battering of children and lying by call it
spanking. It's over, Greg. You and the other supersitious folks can
relax now.

You are doomed. R R R RR RR R RR R R....we might even introduce a law
that says even with permission from the parent an unrelated adult may
not help out little kiddies in the shower.

Tell your buddies in NAMBLA that they can no longer do that. Thanks.

Are you actually a Socialist, and of not, do you
view Socialism with any disdain or concern?

Socialists don't spank? What would socialism or LaVonne's thoughts
about it one way or the other have to do with spanking, Greg? Are you
saying that all laws against assualt and battery are the product of
socialists efforts?

Are you an heir to the big (Multinational)
Minneapolis estate by your name?

Those folks aren't spankers too, some of them?

How long ago did you know that Kane had actually
worked for the STATE of Oregon as a Foster site webmaster?

I doubt she knew at all. Since it's Don Fisher that was. His name is at
the bottom of the index page as webmaster. Web masters rarely, unless
it's their own business, make sites for themselves, but in fact for
others, and have no involvement with the services being offered through
the webpage.

Check out a few webpages for yourself and see.

It appears, though I can't be sure, that Don was or is a techie with
the state of Oregon.

He's no more responsible for what's on the page than the people that
maintain the servers the site resides on.

Yet I've seen suggestions he should be killed for it.

Please try that stuff again where you pretend that
your personal politics and your career choices
do not severely guide your views on a myriad of
issues such as this.

You, having no personal politics other than to scam the state, and
apparently chosing that as your profession, might be thought to be a
guide to your views on issues such as this.

Hasn't KANE mentioned to you that NAMBLA preaches
that children should the same legal rights as adults?

Why would I mention it at all, and what does a 'right to have sex with
adults' have to do with a right to be protected under the law from
assault?

Apparently they take a great interest in Children having
full legal rights to CONSENT to sex with older gay men.

Non sequitur.

Do you see your friends taking a break from doing towel boy, and
shampoo girl, long enough to form an opinion about spanking? It's been
my take, and that of a few scientiests that indeed, many spankers are
getting off on spanking children. Sexually, that is.

Hey, since the last time you posted, there has been
a flood of news stories about Foster and adoptive PEDERASTY.

No there hasn't. No more than the greater flood of incest and sexual
abuse stories about people not adoptive or foster.

It seems the notion of gays and Lesbians being "harmless"
when it comes to child abuse has been more than shattered.

'Fraid not, Greg. That's your delusion, and fed by bigotry and people
that are bigots that fancy themselves "objective" reporters, who have
both lied and ignored reality...just like you.

Please also remember that the woman who killed Logan Marr
was a rabid believer in the Anti-spanking agenda.

So those that advocate against assualting children and misnaming it
spanking are at risk of becoming murderers of children?

Funny how you did not address a single point in LaVonne's post, isn't
it?

Tell you what, instead of asking a lot of innuendo loaded questions,
Greg, why not ask questions about the points LaVonne actually made
below? It would at least look like you are trying to debate honestly.

Yer a case, kiddo, a real case.

Kane


Carlson LaVonne wrote:
In spite of all the decades of research showing NO benefit of corporal
punishment over alternative methods, and showing continued potential for
harm over alternative methods, parents continue to fight for their
perceived "right" to hit their children in the name of discipline.

Martha Fineman's quote that you provide (with appropriate attributes)
needs continual consideration, by parents, by legislators, and by US
citizens. Children should be given rights equal with adults but with
additional protection because they are vulnerable. Does allowing
children to be physically assaulted provide additional protection
because they are vulnerable? I think not.

The best interest of the child should always been the primary
consideration when any action is taken by adults concerning children.
The best interest of the child should superceed parental or governmental
interests. How can anyone argue that the best interests of the children
are served when children are hit and hurt in the name of discipline?
When children are not afforded the most basic legal protection that
every adult in US society enjoys? When there is no justification for
denying children this basic right of protection, other than parental choice?

LaVonne



0:- wrote:
http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Release date: October 6, 2004
Contact: Elaine Justice, 404-727-0643, or
April Bogle,404-712-8713


ATLANTA - OCTOBER 6, 2004 - Despite an overall decline in the
duration, frequency and severity of corporal punishment during the past
40 years, nearly all toddlers - regardless of religious faith or
ethnicity -- are spanked by their parents an average of three times per
week., according to Murray A. Straus, professor of sociology and
co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New
Hampshire.

Straus shared highlights of his more than three decades of research at
the Family Forum Series event, "Spare the Rod? Legal and Religious
Challenges in Raising Children of the Book," Oct. 6, at Emory Law
School. The Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion (CISR)
hosted the event.

Monica Kaufman, WSB-TV anchor, opened the event with a personal
perspective on corporal punishment, based on her childhood, her role as
a mother, and her work as a reporter covering child abuse cases. "I
don't understand why you have to study to get a driver's license,
but anyone can have a child," she said.

Straus pointed out that approximately 55 percent of parents in 1999
agreed "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good
hard spanking," down from nearly 95 percent of parents in 1968. In
addition, parents now stop spanking earlier - 55 percent were hitting
13-year-old-children, versus 35 percent in 1995 who spanked children of
this age. Severity has decreased - there is a decline in the use of
belts, hairbrushes and paddles, and the number of times per day, week
or month also has declined.

Yet prevalence of spanking has remained high: nearly all children have
been spanked in their lives because 94 percent of parents spank
toddlers.

Straus' research, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health,
includes children from birth to age 17 from some 20 countries.

Spanking remains prevalent even though research shows it is not more
effective in correcting behavior than other methods and over the
long-term and has harmful side effects. Children ages two and three
repeat their misbehavior within 5.5 hours of receiving corporal
punishment, versus 9.5 hours if they were disciplined with reasoning
only. One-year-olds who receive corporal punishment from their mothers
are compliant just over 50 percent of the time, versus a nearly 70
percent compliance rate from children who little or no corporal
punishment.

"If you compare the effectiveness of corporal and non-corporal
punishment, they both are highly effective immediately after being
administered and both have a low-level of effectiveness after a few
hours or days of being administered. But over the long-term of months
and years, corporal punishment tends to make behavior worse and has
harmful side effects, such as increasing the probability of delinquency
as a child and depression as an adult , while non-corporal punishment
is more effective and has beneficial side effects," said Straus.

He points out that there is a direct correlation between the frequency
of spanking and an increase in anti-social behavior in the two years
after the year in which the spanking occurred. For example,
Euro-American children ages six through nine who were spanked three
times per week showed an increase of more than 15 percent in anti
social behavior versus a decrease in antisocial behavior for those
children not spanked. Minority children who were spanked showed an
increase in approximately 12 percent in anti-social behavior in the two
years after the year spanking was measured.

A main focus of Straus's talk was on the benefits of not spanking. He
presented research results showing that children who are not spanked
are less likely to:

* hit other children
* hit their parents
* become juvenile delinquents
* become criminal adults
* use domestic violence
* abuse children

Straus also shows that children who are not spanked have fewer social
and psychological problems, such as depression, drug use and suicide.

"What would a world be like without spanking?" Straus asked
"Comparing adults who were not spanked with those who received a high
level of corporal punishment, the not spanked were 47 percent more
likely to graduate from college, 46 percent were less likely to be
seriously depressed, 68 percent were less likely to hit their spouse,
and 67 percent were less likely to physically abuse their own
children."

Religious and legal scholars commented on Straus' findings at the
conclusion of his remarks. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, Emory professor of
law, explained that the Jewish tradition accepts corporal punishment
with specific guidelines. "The duty of parents in the Jewish
tradition is to prepare their children for adulthood. Hitting is an
acceptable form of discipline for parents to use with their own
children if the child has not yet reached adolescence, if the situation
requires the teaching of a lesson, and if the parent objectively
decides that this form of discipline will provide that lesson."

Broyde added that he feels it is wrong to rely on statistics alone when
determining the value of corporal punishment. "Each situation has its
own reality - it is child specific and adult specific," he said.

The Reverend Dr. John Westerhoff, an Episcopal priest and
theologian-in-residence at St Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta,
espoused his understanding of the Christian perspective on corporal
punishment. First, he pointed out, the origin of the word
"discipline" derives from the Latin verb dicere, which means "to
learn."

"The first and primary role of parents in the discipline of their
children is that of role models...how we discipline ourselves and our
children needs to be consistent with the character traits of God, such
as God gives us what we need not deserve, God's justice is for
reconciliation not retribution," he said, adding, "Discipline must
not be confused with punishment: discipline is positive, while
punishment is negative."

Since anger, aggression and violence are among the most frequent
side-effects of punishment, Westerhoff recommends instead setting
appropriate boundaries for children. "Children need reasonable,
consistent limits that they participate in shaping, limits that are
modeled by their parents rather than shaped by rewards and punishment
for compliance," he said. "They also need to be affirmed and loved
as persons of dignity as they learn to be disciplined disciples."

Plemon T. El-Amin, Masjid Imam of the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam,
offered the Islamic perspective on corporal punishment. First and
foremost, he pointed out, "A child is a trust from God who doesn't
belong to parents, he comes through parents, and therefore we should
treat him as a property of God in a most sacred way."

Within this spirit of compassion and caring, El-Amin explained that
Islam sanctions three ways to correct children's behavior: first,
admonish verbally; second, isolate or restrict; third, use corporal
correction that does not bruise or scar and is given with intent to
remedy or help.

"When my grandparents said to me, 'This hurts me more than it's
going to hurt you,' they really meant it," El-Amin said, adding
that he knew his grandmother's spankings were not conducted out of
anger. "She would make an appointment for me to come by her house on
Saturday for my spanking. I knew her love was great. Parents need to
ask themselves if they are correcting behavior because the child is
bothering them, or because if they don't, this behavior is going to
become a problem for the child."

He further explained that in the Koran, the word for striking
physically is also used for striking the intellect or the soul. "The
best method of discipline is to strike the soul, or the consciousness
of the child."

Trenny Stovall, director of the Dekalb County Child Advocacy Center,
offered her legal perspective on the issue by explaining that the State
of Georgia allows corporal punishment, but that children are to be
protected from excessive or unreasonable physical injury by the Cruelty
to Children Act and the Family Violence Act. These protections prove
challenging because they can be very broadly defined in court, she
said, but even more inconsistent is the application of protection to
children who live in diverse communities. "Many of our residents come
from countries where things such as mutilation of girls, hot coins
being placed on skin, and binding children so they won't eat after a
certain time, are cultural norms. We try to explain that in the United
States, this is excessive and unacceptable. We've had pretty good
success at teaching parents to stop this form of punishment."

Karen B. Baynes, a former Fulton County juvenile court associate judge
who now serves as deputy director for the Carl Vinson Institute of
Government at the University of Georgia, says that most people believe
it is their inherent right to discipline their children as they see
fit, and that they believe the law has gone too far in limiting this
right. "It is tough to determine when the law should step in and then
if we do remove children from the home, what is the plan to help
them?"

Martha A. Fineman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory,
challenged corporal punishment from a human rights perspective.
"Children are people, and they as much as adults are covered by
existing human rights treaties and are entitled to special
provisions," she said.

Fineman pointed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which calls for children to be equal with adults but given
special attention from the state because they are vulnerable. (The
United States and Somalia are the only two U.N. member countries that
have not adopted the Convention.)

"The concept of 'best interest of the child' should be the
primary consideration in all actions taken by adults concerning
children. This means that the interest of parents or the state are not
to be considered as primary or of superior importance," she said.

Further, Fineman added, "Ideally the state in policymaking would find
it necessary to conduct an impact analysis before making decisions that
affect children's interests. This idea that there should be some
mechanism to guarantee that children's interest have equal value in
decision-making is quite a radical thought."

Fineman contrasted the equal-rights gains women have made to those of
children. " Battery of intimate partners is no longer tolerated or
ignored; however similar evolution along egalitarian lines for children
has not kept pace. Battery of children by parents is still seen as
necessary 'discipline' by many, perhaps the result of misguided
ignorance, but certainly to be constitutionally tolerated or ignored
unless it passes over some high threshold on the way to abuse."

Fineman challenged the United States to adopt the UN Convention as a
remedy. "Our constitutional tradition has long recognized parental
rights and protected parental prerogatives - it used privacy to
shield parental practices detrimental to the well-being of children. By
contrast, the child protected by the Convention has the right to
'physical integrity' and requires the state to take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence while in the
are of parents or legal guardians."



###






http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

In spite of all the decades of research showing NO benefit of corporal
punishment over alternative methods, and showing continued potential for
harm over alternative methods, parents continue to fight for their
perceived "right" to hit their children in the name of discipline.

Which studies are those, LaVonne? The Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed
the "alternative methods" are worse!

Martha Fineman's quote that you provide (with appropriate attributes)
needs continual consideration, by parents, by legislators, and by US
citizens. Children should be given rights equal with adults but with
additional protection because they are vulnerable. Does allowing
children to be physically assaulted provide additional protection
because they are vulnerable? I think not.

The best interest of the child should always been the primary
consideration when any action is taken by adults concerning children.
The best interest of the child should superceed parental or governmental
interests. How can anyone argue that the best interests of the children
are served when children are hit and hurt in the name of discipline?
When children are not afforded the most basic legal protection that
every adult in US society enjoys? When there is no justification for
denying children this basic right of protection, other than parental choice?

The police carry batons and can hit you if you don't comply, LaVonne. But
I guess, in the eyes of the anti-spanking zealotS like yourself, being hit
by a baton is not assault but being spanked by a parent is, right Lavonne?

Doan

LaVonne



0:- wrote:
http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Release date: October 6, 2004
Contact: Elaine Justice, 404-727-0643, or
April Bogle,404-712-8713


ATLANTA - OCTOBER 6, 2004 - Despite an overall decline in the
duration, frequency and severity of corporal punishment during the past
40 years, nearly all toddlers - regardless of religious faith or
ethnicity -- are spanked by their parents an average of three times per
week., according to Murray A. Straus, professor of sociology and
co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New
Hampshire.

Straus shared highlights of his more than three decades of research at
the Family Forum Series event, "Spare the Rod? Legal and Religious
Challenges in Raising Children of the Book," Oct. 6, at Emory Law
School. The Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion (CISR)
hosted the event.

Monica Kaufman, WSB-TV anchor, opened the event with a personal
perspective on corporal punishment, based on her childhood, her role as
a mother, and her work as a reporter covering child abuse cases. "I
don't understand why you have to study to get a driver's license,
but anyone can have a child," she said.

Straus pointed out that approximately 55 percent of parents in 1999
agreed "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good
hard spanking," down from nearly 95 percent of parents in 1968. In
addition, parents now stop spanking earlier - 55 percent were hitting
13-year-old-children, versus 35 percent in 1995 who spanked children of
this age. Severity has decreased - there is a decline in the use of
belts, hairbrushes and paddles, and the number of times per day, week
or month also has declined.

Yet prevalence of spanking has remained high: nearly all children have
been spanked in their lives because 94 percent of parents spank
toddlers.

Straus' research, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health,
includes children from birth to age 17 from some 20 countries.

Spanking remains prevalent even though research shows it is not more
effective in correcting behavior than other methods and over the
long-term and has harmful side effects. Children ages two and three
repeat their misbehavior within 5.5 hours of receiving corporal
punishment, versus 9.5 hours if they were disciplined with reasoning
only. One-year-olds who receive corporal punishment from their mothers
are compliant just over 50 percent of the time, versus a nearly 70
percent compliance rate from children who little or no corporal
punishment.

"If you compare the effectiveness of corporal and non-corporal
punishment, they both are highly effective immediately after being
administered and both have a low-level of effectiveness after a few
hours or days of being administered. But over the long-term of months
and years, corporal punishment tends to make behavior worse and has
harmful side effects, such as increasing the probability of delinquency
as a child and depression as an adult , while non-corporal punishment
is more effective and has beneficial side effects," said Straus.

He points out that there is a direct correlation between the frequency
of spanking and an increase in anti-social behavior in the two years
after the year in which the spanking occurred. For example,
Euro-American children ages six through nine who were spanked three
times per week showed an increase of more than 15 percent in anti
social behavior versus a decrease in antisocial behavior for those
children not spanked. Minority children who were spanked showed an
increase in approximately 12 percent in anti-social behavior in the two
years after the year spanking was measured.

A main focus of Straus's talk was on the benefits of not spanking. He
presented research results showing that children who are not spanked
are less likely to:

* hit other children
* hit their parents
* become juvenile delinquents
* become criminal adults
* use domestic violence
* abuse children

Straus also shows that children who are not spanked have fewer social
and psychological problems, such as depression, drug use and suicide.

"What would a world be like without spanking?" Straus asked
"Comparing adults who were not spanked with those who received a high
level of corporal punishment, the not spanked were 47 percent more
likely to graduate from college, 46 percent were less likely to be
seriously depressed, 68 percent were less likely to hit their spouse,
and 67 percent were less likely to physically abuse their own
children."

Religious and legal scholars commented on Straus' findings at the
conclusion of his remarks. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, Emory professor of
law, explained that the Jewish tradition accepts corporal punishment
with specific guidelines. "The duty of parents in the Jewish
tradition is to prepare their children for adulthood. Hitting is an
acceptable form of discipline for parents to use with their own
children if the child has not yet reached adolescence, if the situation
requires the teaching of a lesson, and if the parent objectively
decides that this form of discipline will provide that lesson."

Broyde added that he feels it is wrong to rely on statistics alone when
determining the value of corporal punishment. "Each situation has its
own reality - it is child specific and adult specific," he said.

The Reverend Dr. John Westerhoff, an Episcopal priest and
theologian-in-residence at St Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta,
espoused his understanding of the Christian perspective on corporal
punishment. First, he pointed out, the origin of the word
"discipline" derives from the Latin verb dicere, which means "to
learn."

"The first and primary role of parents in the discipline of their
children is that of role models...how we discipline ourselves and our
children needs to be consistent with the character traits of God, such
as God gives us what we need not deserve, God's justice is for
reconciliation not retribution," he said, adding, "Discipline must
not be confused with punishment: discipline is positive, while
punishment is negative."

Since anger, aggression and violence are among the most frequent
side-effects of punishment, Westerhoff recommends instead setting
appropriate boundaries for children. "Children need reasonable,
consistent limits that they participate in shaping, limits that are
modeled by their parents rather than shaped by rewards and punishment
for compliance," he said. "They also need to be affirmed and loved
as persons of dignity as they learn to be disciplined disciples."

Plemon T. El-Amin, Masjid Imam of the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam,
offered the Islamic perspective on corporal punishment. First and
foremost, he pointed out, "A child is a trust from God who doesn't
belong to parents, he comes through parents, and therefore we should
treat him as a property of God in a most sacred way."

Within this spirit of compassion and caring, El-Amin explained that
Islam sanctions three ways to correct children's behavior: first,
admonish verbally; second, isolate or restrict; third, use corporal
correction that does not bruise or scar and is given with intent to
remedy or help.

"When my grandparents said to me, 'This hurts me more than it's
going to hurt you,' they really meant it," El-Amin said, adding
that he knew his grandmother's spankings were not conducted out of
anger. "She would make an appointment for me to come by her house on
Saturday for my spanking. I knew her love was great. Parents need to
ask themselves if they are correcting behavior because the child is
bothering them, or because if they don't, this behavior is going to
become a problem for the child."

He further explained that in the Koran, the word for striking
physically is also used for striking the intellect or the soul. "The
best method of discipline is to strike the soul, or the consciousness
of the child."

Trenny Stovall, director of the Dekalb County Child Advocacy Center,
offered her legal perspective on the issue by explaining that the State
of Georgia allows corporal punishment, but that children are to be
protected from excessive or unreasonable physical injury by the Cruelty
to Children Act and the Family Violence Act. These protections prove
challenging because they can be very broadly defined in court, she
said, but even more inconsistent is the application of protection to
children who live in diverse communities. "Many of our residents come
from countries where things such as mutilation of girls, hot coins
being placed on skin, and binding children so they won't eat after a
certain time, are cultural norms. We try to explain that in the United
States, this is excessive and unacceptable. We've had pretty good
success at teaching parents to stop this form of punishment."

Karen B. Baynes, a former Fulton County juvenile court associate judge
who now serves as deputy director for the Carl Vinson Institute of
Government at the University of Georgia, says that most people believe
it is their inherent right to discipline their children as they see
fit, and that they believe the law has gone too far in limiting this
right. "It is tough to determine when the law should step in and then
if we do remove children from the home, what is the plan to help
them?"

Martha A. Fineman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory,
challenged corporal punishment from a human rights perspective.
"Children are people, and they as much as adults are covered by
existing human rights treaties and are entitled to special
provisions," she said.

Fineman pointed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which calls for children to be equal with adults but given
special attention from the state because they are vulnerable. (The
United States and Somalia are the only two U.N. member countries that
have not adopted the Convention.)

"The concept of 'best interest of the child' should be the
primary consideration in all actions taken by adults concerning
children. This means that the interest of parents or the state are not
to be considered as primary or of superior importance," she said.

Further, Fineman added, "Ideally the state in policymaking would find
it necessary to conduct an impact analysis before making decisions that
affect children's interests. This idea that there should be some
mechanism to guarantee that children's interest have equal value in
decision-making is quite a radical thought."

Fineman contrasted the equal-rights gains women have made to those of
children. " Battery of intimate partners is no longer tolerated or
ignored; however similar evolution along egalitarian lines for children
has not kept pace. Battery of children by parents is still seen as
necessary 'discipline' by many, perhaps the result of misguided
ignorance, but certainly to be constitutionally tolerated or ignored
unless it passes over some high threshold on the way to abuse."

Fineman challenged the United States to adopt the UN Convention as a
remedy. "Our constitutional tradition has long recognized parental
rights and protected parental prerogatives - it used privacy to
shield parental practices detrimental to the well-being of children. By
contrast, the child protected by the Convention has the right to
'physical integrity' and requires the state to take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence while in the
are of parents or legal guardians."



###






http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Kane can't even have enough self control to curb his swearing
in public, but he is ""superior"" enough to judge parents about
how they handle themselves and their children.

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

In spite of all the decades of research showing NO benefit of corporal
punishment over alternative methods, and showing continued potential for
harm over alternative methods, parents continue to fight for their
perceived "right" to hit their children in the name of discipline.

Which studies are those, LaVonne? The Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed
the "alternative methods" are worse!

Martha Fineman's quote that you provide (with appropriate attributes)
needs continual consideration, by parents, by legislators, and by US
citizens. Children should be given rights equal with adults but with
additional protection because they are vulnerable. Does allowing
children to be physically assaulted provide additional protection
because they are vulnerable? I think not.

The best interest of the child should always been the primary
consideration when any action is taken by adults concerning children.
The best interest of the child should superceed parental or governmental
interests. How can anyone argue that the best interests of the children
are served when children are hit and hurt in the name of discipline?
When children are not afforded the most basic legal protection that
every adult in US society enjoys? When there is no justification for
denying children this basic right of protection, other than parental choice?

The police carry batons and can hit you if you don't comply, LaVonne. But
I guess, in the eyes of the anti-spanking zealotS like yourself, being hit
by a baton is not assault but being spanked by a parent is, right Lavonne?

Doan

LaVonne



0:- wrote:
http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Release date: October 6, 2004
Contact: Elaine Justice, 404-727-0643, or
April Bogle,404-712-8713


ATLANTA - OCTOBER 6, 2004 - Despite an overall decline in the
duration, frequency and severity of corporal punishment during the past
40 years, nearly all toddlers - regardless of religious faith or
ethnicity -- are spanked by their parents an average of three times per
week., according to Murray A. Straus, professor of sociology and
co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New
Hampshire.

Straus shared highlights of his more than three decades of research at
the Family Forum Series event, "Spare the Rod? Legal and Religious
Challenges in Raising Children of the Book," Oct. 6, at Emory Law
School. The Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion (CISR)
hosted the event.

Monica Kaufman, WSB-TV anchor, opened the event with a personal
perspective on corporal punishment, based on her childhood, her role as
a mother, and her work as a reporter covering child abuse cases. "I
don't understand why you have to study to get a driver's license,
but anyone can have a child," she said.

Straus pointed out that approximately 55 percent of parents in 1999
agreed "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good
hard spanking," down from nearly 95 percent of parents in 1968. In
addition, parents now stop spanking earlier - 55 percent were hitting
13-year-old-children, versus 35 percent in 1995 who spanked children of
this age. Severity has decreased - there is a decline in the use of
belts, hairbrushes and paddles, and the number of times per day, week
or month also has declined.

Yet prevalence of spanking has remained high: nearly all children have
been spanked in their lives because 94 percent of parents spank
toddlers.

Straus' research, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health,
includes children from birth to age 17 from some 20 countries.

Spanking remains prevalent even though research shows it is not more
effective in correcting behavior than other methods and over the
long-term and has harmful side effects. Children ages two and three
repeat their misbehavior within 5.5 hours of receiving corporal
punishment, versus 9.5 hours if they were disciplined with reasoning
only. One-year-olds who receive corporal punishment from their mothers
are compliant just over 50 percent of the time, versus a nearly 70
percent compliance rate from children who little or no corporal
punishment.

"If you compare the effectiveness of corporal and non-corporal
punishment, they both are highly effective immediately after being
administered and both have a low-level of effectiveness after a few
hours or days of being administered. But over the long-term of months
and years, corporal punishment tends to make behavior worse and has
harmful side effects, such as increasing the probability of delinquency
as a child and depression as an adult , while non-corporal punishment
is more effective and has beneficial side effects," said Straus.

He points out that there is a direct correlation between the frequency
of spanking and an increase in anti-social behavior in the two years
after the year in which the spanking occurred. For example,
Euro-American children ages six through nine who were spanked three
times per week showed an increase of more than 15 percent in anti
social behavior versus a decrease in antisocial behavior for those
children not spanked. Minority children who were spanked showed an
increase in approximately 12 percent in anti-social behavior in the two
years after the year spanking was measured.

A main focus of Straus's talk was on the benefits of not spanking. He
presented research results showing that children who are not spanked
are less likely to:

* hit other children
* hit their parents
* become juvenile delinquents
* become criminal adults
* use domestic violence
* abuse children

Straus also shows that children who are not spanked have fewer social
and psychological problems, such as depression, drug use and suicide.

"What would a world be like without spanking?" Straus asked
"Comparing adults who were not spanked with those who received a high
level of corporal punishment, the not spanked were 47 percent more
likely to graduate from college, 46 percent were less likely to be
seriously depressed, 68 percent were less likely to hit their spouse,
and 67 percent were less likely to physically abuse their own
children."

Religious and legal scholars commented on Straus' findings at the
conclusion of his remarks. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, Emory professor of
law, explained that the Jewish tradition accepts corporal punishment
with specific guidelines. "The duty of parents in the Jewish
tradition is to prepare their children for adulthood. Hitting is an
acceptable form of discipline for parents to use with their own
children if the child has not yet reached adolescence, if the situation
requires the teaching of a lesson, and if the parent objectively
decides that this form of discipline will provide that lesson."

Broyde added that he feels it is wrong to rely on statistics alone when
determining the value of corporal punishment. "Each situation has its
own reality - it is child specific and adult specific," he said.

The Reverend Dr. John Westerhoff, an Episcopal priest and
theologian-in-residence at St Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta,
espoused his understanding of the Christian perspective on corporal
punishment. First, he pointed out, the origin of the word
"discipline" derives from the Latin verb dicere, which means "to
learn."

"The first and primary role of parents in the discipline of their
children is that of role models...how we discipline ourselves and our
children needs to be consistent with the character traits of God, such
as God gives us what we need not deserve, God's justice is for
reconciliation not retribution," he said, adding, "Discipline must
not be confused with punishment: discipline is positive, while
punishment is negative."

Since anger, aggression and violence are among the most frequent
side-effects of punishment, Westerhoff recommends instead setting
appropriate boundaries for children. "Children need reasonable,
consistent limits that they participate in shaping, limits that are
modeled by their parents rather than shaped by rewards and punishment
for compliance," he said. "They also need to be affirmed and loved
as persons of dignity as they learn to be disciplined disciples."

Plemon T. El-Amin, Masjid Imam of the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam,
offered the Islamic perspective on corporal punishment. First and
foremost, he pointed out, "A child is a trust from God who doesn't
belong to parents, he comes through parents, and therefore we should
treat him as a property of God in a most sacred way."

Within this spirit of compassion and caring, El-Amin explained that
Islam sanctions three ways to correct children's behavior: first,
admonish verbally; second, isolate or restrict; third, use corporal
correction that does not bruise or scar and is given with intent to
remedy or help.

"When my grandparents said to me, 'This hurts me more than it's
going to hurt you,' they really meant it," El-Amin said, adding
that he knew his grandmother's spankings were not conducted out of
anger. "She would make an appointment for me to come by her house on
Saturday for my spanking. I knew her love was great. Parents need to
ask themselves if they are correcting behavior because the child is
bothering them, or because if they don't, this behavior is going to
become a problem for the child."

He further explained that in the Koran, the word for striking
physically is also used for striking the intellect or the soul. "The
best method of discipline is to strike the soul, or the consciousness
of the child."

Trenny Stovall, director of the Dekalb County Child Advocacy Center,
offered her legal perspective on the issue by explaining that the State
of Georgia allows corporal punishment, but that children are to be
protected from excessive or unreasonable physical injury by the Cruelty
to Children Act and the Family Violence Act. These protections prove
challenging because they can be very broadly defined in court, she
said, but even more inconsistent is the application of protection to
children who live in diverse communities. "Many of our residents come
from countries where things such as mutilation of girls, hot coins
being placed on skin, and binding children so they won't eat after a
certain time, are cultural norms. We try to explain that in the United
States, this is excessive and unacceptable. We've had pretty good
success at teaching parents to stop this form of punishment."

Karen B. Baynes, a former Fulton County juvenile court associate judge
who now serves as deputy director for the Carl Vinson Institute of
Government at the University of Georgia, says that most people believe
it is their inherent right to discipline their children as they see
fit, and that they believe the law has gone too far in limiting this
right. "It is tough to determine when the law should step in and then
if we do remove children from the home, what is the plan to help
them?"

Martha A. Fineman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory,
challenged corporal punishment from a human rights perspective.
"Children are people, and they as much as adults are covered by
existing human rights treaties and are entitled to special
provisions," she said.

Fineman pointed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which calls for children to be equal with adults but given
special attention from the state because they are vulnerable. (The
United States and Somalia are the only two U.N. member countries that
have not adopted the Convention.)

"The concept of 'best interest of the child' should be the
primary consideration in all actions taken by adults concerning
children. This means that the interest of parents or the state are not
to be considered as primary or of superior importance," she said.

Further, Fineman added, "Ideally the state in policymaking would find
it necessary to conduct an impact analysis before making decisions that
affect children's interests. This idea that there should be some
mechanism to guarantee that children's interest have equal value in
decision-making is quite a radical thought."

Fineman contrasted the equal-rights gains women have made to those of
children. " Battery of intimate partners is no longer tolerated or
ignored; however similar evolution along egalitarian lines for children
has not kept pace. Battery of children by parents is still seen as
necessary 'discipline' by many, perhaps the result of misguided
ignorance, but certainly to be constitutionally tolerated or ignored
unless it passes over some high threshold on the way to abuse."

Fineman challenged the United States to adopt the UN Convention as a
remedy. "Our constitutional tradition has long recognized parental
rights and protected parental prerogatives - it used privacy to
shield parental practices detrimental to the well-being of children. By
contrast, the child protected by the Convention has the right to
'physical integrity' and requires the state to take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence while in the
are of parents or legal guardians."



###






http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Greegor wrote:
Kane can't even have enough self control to curb his swearing
in public,

Proof please?

What has self control got to do with it?

I can swear, **** you, Greg.

Or not, sir.

As I demonstrate every day on this newsgroup that I post.

but he is ""superior"" enough to judge parents about
how they handle themselves and their children.

So do you, Greg. So does Doan.

Who doesn't "judge," Greg?

Notice Doan is still comparing parenting to policing. Interesting
juxtaposition of values and methods, wouldn't you say?

I'd say that was most certainly a matter of judging. He apparently
judges that hitting a child to make him comply is okay because cops hit
to force compliance. Hmmmmm....morals anyone?

Kane

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

In spite of all the decades of research showing NO benefit of corporal
punishment over alternative methods, and showing continued potential for
harm over alternative methods, parents continue to fight for their
perceived "right" to hit their children in the name of discipline.

Which studies are those, LaVonne? The Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed
the "alternative methods" are worse!

Martha Fineman's quote that you provide (with appropriate attributes)
needs continual consideration, by parents, by legislators, and by US
citizens. Children should be given rights equal with adults but with
additional protection because they are vulnerable. Does allowing
children to be physically assaulted provide additional protection
because they are vulnerable? I think not.

The best interest of the child should always been the primary
consideration when any action is taken by adults concerning children.
The best interest of the child should superceed parental or governmental
interests. How can anyone argue that the best interests of the children
are served when children are hit and hurt in the name of discipline?
When children are not afforded the most basic legal protection that
every adult in US society enjoys? When there is no justification for
denying children this basic right of protection, other than parental choice?

The police carry batons and can hit you if you don't comply, LaVonne. But
I guess, in the eyes of the anti-spanking zealotS like yourself, being hit
by a baton is not assault but being spanked by a parent is, right Lavonne?

Doan

LaVonne



0:- wrote:
http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Release date: October 6, 2004
Contact: Elaine Justice, 404-727-0643, or
April Bogle,404-712-8713


ATLANTA - OCTOBER 6, 2004 - Despite an overall decline in the
duration, frequency and severity of corporal punishment during the past
40 years, nearly all toddlers - regardless of religious faith or
ethnicity -- are spanked by their parents an average of three times per
week., according to Murray A. Straus, professor of sociology and
co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New
Hampshire.

Straus shared highlights of his more than three decades of research at
the Family Forum Series event, "Spare the Rod? Legal and Religious
Challenges in Raising Children of the Book," Oct. 6, at Emory Law
School. The Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion (CISR)
hosted the event.

Monica Kaufman, WSB-TV anchor, opened the event with a personal
perspective on corporal punishment, based on her childhood, her role as
a mother, and her work as a reporter covering child abuse cases. "I
don't understand why you have to study to get a driver's license,
but anyone can have a child," she said.

Straus pointed out that approximately 55 percent of parents in 1999
agreed "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good
hard spanking," down from nearly 95 percent of parents in 1968. In
addition, parents now stop spanking earlier - 55 percent were hitting
13-year-old-children, versus 35 percent in 1995 who spanked children of
this age. Severity has decreased - there is a decline in the use of
belts, hairbrushes and paddles, and the number of times per day, week
or month also has declined.

Yet prevalence of spanking has remained high: nearly all children have
been spanked in their lives because 94 percent of parents spank
toddlers.

Straus' research, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health,
includes children from birth to age 17 from some 20 countries.

Spanking remains prevalent even though research shows it is not more
effective in correcting behavior than other methods and over the
long-term and has harmful side effects. Children ages two and three
repeat their misbehavior within 5.5 hours of receiving corporal
punishment, versus 9.5 hours if they were disciplined with reasoning
only. One-year-olds who receive corporal punishment from their mothers
are compliant just over 50 percent of the time, versus a nearly 70
percent compliance rate from children who little or no corporal
punishment.

"If you compare the effectiveness of corporal and non-corporal
punishment, they both are highly effective immediately after being
administered and both have a low-level of effectiveness after a few
hours or days of being administered. But over the long-term of months
and years, corporal punishment tends to make behavior worse and has
harmful side effects, such as increasing the probability of delinquency
as a child and depression as an adult , while non-corporal punishment
is more effective and has beneficial side effects," said Straus.

He points out that there is a direct correlation between the frequency
of spanking and an increase in anti-social behavior in the two years
after the year in which the spanking occurred. For example,
Euro-American children ages six through nine who were spanked three
times per week showed an increase of more than 15 percent in anti
social behavior versus a decrease in antisocial behavior for those
children not spanked. Minority children who were spanked showed an
increase in approximately 12 percent in anti-social behavior in the two
years after the year spanking was measured.

A main focus of Straus's talk was on the benefits of not spanking. He
presented research results showing that children who are not spanked
are less likely to:

* hit other children
* hit their parents
* become juvenile delinquents
* become criminal adults
* use domestic violence
* abuse children

Straus also shows that children who are not spanked have fewer social
and psychological problems, such as depression, drug use and suicide.

"What would a world be like without spanking?" Straus asked
"Comparing adults who were not spanked with those who received a high
level of corporal punishment, the not spanked were 47 percent more
likely to graduate from college, 46 percent were less likely to be
seriously depressed, 68 percent were less likely to hit their spouse,
and 67 percent were less likely to physically abuse their own
children."

Religious and legal scholars commented on Straus' findings at the
conclusion of his remarks. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, Emory professor of
law, explained that the Jewish tradition accepts corporal punishment
with specific guidelines. "The duty of parents in the Jewish
tradition is to prepare their children for adulthood. Hitting is an
acceptable form of discipline for parents to use with their own
children if the child has not yet reached adolescence, if the situation
requires the teaching of a lesson, and if the parent objectively
decides that this form of discipline will provide that lesson."

Broyde added that he feels it is wrong to rely on statistics alone when
determining the value of corporal punishment. "Each situation has its
own reality - it is child specific and adult specific," he said.

The Reverend Dr. John Westerhoff, an Episcopal priest and
theologian-in-residence at St Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta,
espoused his understanding of the Christian perspective on corporal
punishment. First, he pointed out, the origin of the word
"discipline" derives from the Latin verb dicere, which means "to
learn."

"The first and primary role of parents in the discipline of their
children is that of role models...how we discipline ourselves and our
children needs to be consistent with the character traits of God, such
as God gives us what we need not deserve, God's justice is for
reconciliation not retribution," he said, adding, "Discipline must
not be confused with punishment: discipline is positive, while
punishment is negative."

Since anger, aggression and violence are among the most frequent
side-effects of punishment, Westerhoff recommends instead setting
appropriate boundaries for children. "Children need reasonable,
consistent limits that they participate in shaping, limits that are
modeled by their parents rather than shaped by rewards and punishment
for compliance," he said. "They also need to be affirmed and loved
as persons of dignity as they learn to be disciplined disciples."

Plemon T. El-Amin, Masjid Imam of the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam,
offered the Islamic perspective on corporal punishment. First and
foremost, he pointed out, "A child is a trust from God who doesn't
belong to parents, he comes through parents, and therefore we should
treat him as a property of God in a most sacred way."

Within this spirit of compassion and caring, El-Amin explained that
Islam sanctions three ways to correct children's behavior: first,
admonish verbally; second, isolate or restrict; third, use corporal
correction that does not bruise or scar and is given with intent to
remedy or help.

"When my grandparents said to me, 'This hurts me more than it's
going to hurt you,' they really meant it," El-Amin said, adding
that he knew his grandmother's spankings were not conducted out of
anger. "She would make an appointment for me to come by her house on
Saturday for my spanking. I knew her love was great. Parents need to
ask themselves if they are correcting behavior because the child is
bothering them, or because if they don't, this behavior is going to
become a problem for the child."

He further explained that in the Koran, the word for striking
physically is also used for striking the intellect or the soul. "The
best method of discipline is to strike the soul, or the consciousness
of the child."

Trenny Stovall, director of the Dekalb County Child Advocacy Center,
offered her legal perspective on the issue by explaining that the State
of Georgia allows corporal punishment, but that children are to be
protected from excessive or unreasonable physical injury by the Cruelty
to Children Act and the Family Violence Act. These protections prove
challenging because they can be very broadly defined in court, she
said, but even more inconsistent is the application of protection to
children who live in diverse communities. "Many of our residents come
from countries where things such as mutilation of girls, hot coins
being placed on skin, and binding children so they won't eat after a
certain time, are cultural norms. We try to explain that in the United
States, this is excessive and unacceptable. We've had pretty good
success at teaching parents to stop this form of punishment."

Karen B. Baynes, a former Fulton County juvenile court associate judge
who now serves as deputy director for the Carl Vinson Institute of
Government at the University of Georgia, says that most people believe
it is their inherent right to discipline their children as they see
fit, and that they believe the law has gone too far in limiting this
right. "It is tough to determine when the law should step in and then
if we do remove children from the home, what is the plan to help
them?"

Martha A. Fineman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory,
challenged corporal punishment from a human rights perspective.
"Children are people, and they as much as adults are covered by
existing human rights treaties and are entitled to special
provisions," she said.

Fineman pointed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which calls for children to be equal with adults but given
special attention from the state because they are vulnerable. (The
United States and Somalia are the only two U.N. member countries that
have not adopted the Convention.)

"The concept of 'best interest of the child' should be the
primary consideration in all actions taken by adults concerning
children. This means that the interest of parents or the state are not
to be considered as primary or of superior importance," she said.

Further, Fineman added, "Ideally the state in policymaking would find
it necessary to conduct an impact analysis before making decisions that
affect children's interests. This idea that there should be some
mechanism to guarantee that children's interest have equal value in
decision-making is quite a radical thought."

Fineman contrasted the equal-rights gains women have made to those of
children. " Battery of intimate partners is no longer tolerated or
ignored; however similar evolution along egalitarian lines for children
has not kept pace. Battery of children by parents is still seen as
necessary 'discipline' by many, perhaps the result of misguided
ignorance, but certainly to be constitutionally tolerated or ignored
unless it passes over some high threshold on the way to abuse."

Fineman challenged the United States to adopt the UN Convention as a
remedy. "Our constitutional tradition has long recognized parental
rights and protected parental prerogatives - it used privacy to
shield parental practices detrimental to the well-being of children. By
contrast, the child protected by the Convention has the right to
'physical integrity' and requires the state to take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence while in the
are of parents or legal guardians."



###






http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

In spite of all the decades of research showing NO benefit of corporal
punishment over alternative methods, and showing continued potential for
harm over alternative methods, parents continue to fight for their
perceived "right" to hit their children in the name of discipline.

Which studies are those, LaVonne? The Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed
the "alternative methods" are worse!

And you continually refuse to respond to my followup comment to your
nonsense.

They were three obvious punishments, and one that could and can be
easily delivered as punishment.

That's not "alternative methods," Doan, that SOME alternative methods.
Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with
considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's
more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed,
when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE.

Martha Fineman's quote that you provide (with appropriate attributes)
needs continual consideration, by parents, by legislators, and by US
citizens. Children should be given rights equal with adults but with
additional protection because they are vulnerable. Does allowing
children to be physically assaulted provide additional protection
because they are vulnerable? I think not.

Readers, notice this habit of Doan's, taken up shortly after he first
joined this group (with considerably more civil and ethical content, I
note) of dodging such issues as that above.

It's pretty obvious he isn't here to debate the issue, but to harass
those that do.

The best interest of the child should always been the primary
consideration when any action is taken by adults concerning children.
The best interest of the child should superceed parental or governmental
interests. How can anyone argue that the best interests of the children
are served when children are hit and hurt in the name of discipline?
When children are not afforded the most basic legal protection that
every adult in US society enjoys? When there is no justification for
denying children this basic right of protection, other than parental choice?

The police carry batons and can hit you if you don't comply, LaVonne.

No, Doan, they cannot legally do so unless you resist arrest or pose
and immediate threat.

In fact, they get sued, and busted for doing otherwise, simply to make
you "comply." There has to be special circumstances that do no apply to
children.

But
I guess,

No, you insinuate. You aren't guessing.

in the eyes of the anti-spanking zealotS like yourself,

What precisely is an anti-spanking zealot, Doan?


being hit
by a baton is not assault

You are insinuating something you cannot prove and there is no evidence
for.

How would you know what LaVonne or anyone else thinks about this unless
they have said so?

I consider it assault of a police officer uses more force than is
allowed by law. And so does the law. There's no blanket acceptance of
use of force without strict guidelines...and with children and spanking
there are few guidelines at all. Though they are coming soon to a
community near you.....R R RR R R R RR RR by law.

but being spanked by a parent is, right Lavonne?

Yes, and sadly through moral deficiency by society, up until recently,
not recognized legally as such.

Now if a school used paddling on a child in many state it would indeed
be battery. And assault.

Must fry your monkeyboy buns. R R RR R RR

How did children, Doan, in your mind suddenly equate with police
suspects? Were you a criminal when you were a child?

Are children, in their everyday mis-behaviors then criminals to be
beaten with batons?

Why aren't parents allowed to USE police batons on their children,
Doan?

Should they be?

RRR RR RRR R .... are you ever stupid.

Doan

No, Doan, Straus is correct. Fewer and fewer Amercians believe that
spanking is okay. And more and more of them are greatly reducing
spanking of their own children.

You know this, and you know people such as yourself, Chris from Texas,
and similar folks, write this kind of garbage you just tried, (and have
done on this ng for years.....what, can't get a new dog or pony?) is
your last desperate gasp before you are publicly exposed as societies
rejects.

Sorry. You are doomed.

Late each summer, September in fact, I spend a nice long week with
about 150 parents and children at a beach resort. We have all kinds of
folks there, from FBI agents, to water quality control professionals,
to homemakers, and little kids of all ages.

A week of everything from raucous touch football on the beach, to giant
Tug-O-Wars, with nary a child spanked, in fact not even harshly spoken
to.

Are their conflicts? Of course. Kids are driven to explore. Every
conflict I've seen, from picking Huckleberries in off limits areas, to
hogging games on rainy days, results in just one thing to correct it:
instruction from an adult.

These kids are athletic, energetic, highly self motivated learners.
They aren't spanked.

Not one of them.. tots to teens. Accidents are nearly non-existent.
Adult or child. Yet sports games and roughhousing is common. Boating,
horseback riding, baseball, even wrestling.

Figure it out, stupid little boy.

Kane


LaVonne



0:- wrote:
http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

Release date: October 6, 2004
Contact: Elaine Justice, 404-727-0643, or
April Bogle,404-712-8713


ATLANTA - OCTOBER 6, 2004 - Despite an overall decline in the
duration, frequency and severity of corporal punishment during the past
40 years, nearly all toddlers - regardless of religious faith or
ethnicity -- are spanked by their parents an average of three times per
week., according to Murray A. Straus, professor of sociology and
co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New
Hampshire.

Straus shared highlights of his more than three decades of research at
the Family Forum Series event, "Spare the Rod? Legal and Religious
Challenges in Raising Children of the Book," Oct. 6, at Emory Law
School. The Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion (CISR)
hosted the event.

Monica Kaufman, WSB-TV anchor, opened the event with a personal
perspective on corporal punishment, based on her childhood, her role as
a mother, and her work as a reporter covering child abuse cases. "I
don't understand why you have to study to get a driver's license,
but anyone can have a child," she said.

Straus pointed out that approximately 55 percent of parents in 1999
agreed "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good
hard spanking," down from nearly 95 percent of parents in 1968. In
addition, parents now stop spanking earlier - 55 percent were hitting
13-year-old-children, versus 35 percent in 1995 who spanked children of
this age. Severity has decreased - there is a decline in the use of
belts, hairbrushes and paddles, and the number of times per day, week
or month also has declined.

Yet prevalence of spanking has remained high: nearly all children have
been spanked in their lives because 94 percent of parents spank
toddlers.

Straus' research, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health,
includes children from birth to age 17 from some 20 countries.

Spanking remains prevalent even though research shows it is not more
effective in correcting behavior than other methods and over the
long-term and has harmful side effects. Children ages two and three
repeat their misbehavior within 5.5 hours of receiving corporal
punishment, versus 9.5 hours if they were disciplined with reasoning
only. One-year-olds who receive corporal punishment from their mothers
are compliant just over 50 percent of the time, versus a nearly 70
percent compliance rate from children who little or no corporal
punishment.

"If you compare the effectiveness of corporal and non-corporal
punishment, they both are highly effective immediately after being
administered and both have a low-level of effectiveness after a few
hours or days of being administered. But over the long-term of months
and years, corporal punishment tends to make behavior worse and has
harmful side effects, such as increasing the probability of delinquency
as a child and depression as an adult , while non-corporal punishment
is more effective and has beneficial side effects," said Straus.

He points out that there is a direct correlation between the frequency
of spanking and an increase in anti-social behavior in the two years
after the year in which the spanking occurred. For example,
Euro-American children ages six through nine who were spanked three
times per week showed an increase of more than 15 percent in anti
social behavior versus a decrease in antisocial behavior for those
children not spanked. Minority children who were spanked showed an
increase in approximately 12 percent in anti-social behavior in the two
years after the year spanking was measured.

A main focus of Straus's talk was on the benefits of not spanking. He
presented research results showing that children who are not spanked
are less likely to:

* hit other children
* hit their parents
* become juvenile delinquents
* become criminal adults
* use domestic violence
* abuse children

Straus also shows that children who are not spanked have fewer social
and psychological problems, such as depression, drug use and suicide.

"What would a world be like without spanking?" Straus asked
"Comparing adults who were not spanked with those who received a high
level of corporal punishment, the not spanked were 47 percent more
likely to graduate from college, 46 percent were less likely to be
seriously depressed, 68 percent were less likely to hit their spouse,
and 67 percent were less likely to physically abuse their own
children."

Religious and legal scholars commented on Straus' findings at the
conclusion of his remarks. Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, Emory professor of
law, explained that the Jewish tradition accepts corporal punishment
with specific guidelines. "The duty of parents in the Jewish
tradition is to prepare their children for adulthood. Hitting is an
acceptable form of discipline for parents to use with their own
children if the child has not yet reached adolescence, if the situation
requires the teaching of a lesson, and if the parent objectively
decides that this form of discipline will provide that lesson."

Broyde added that he feels it is wrong to rely on statistics alone when
determining the value of corporal punishment. "Each situation has its
own reality - it is child specific and adult specific," he said.

The Reverend Dr. John Westerhoff, an Episcopal priest and
theologian-in-residence at St Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta,
espoused his understanding of the Christian perspective on corporal
punishment. First, he pointed out, the origin of the word
"discipline" derives from the Latin verb dicere, which means "to
learn."

"The first and primary role of parents in the discipline of their
children is that of role models...how we discipline ourselves and our
children needs to be consistent with the character traits of God, such
as God gives us what we need not deserve, God's justice is for
reconciliation not retribution," he said, adding, "Discipline must
not be confused with punishment: discipline is positive, while
punishment is negative."

Since anger, aggression and violence are among the most frequent
side-effects of punishment, Westerhoff recommends instead setting
appropriate boundaries for children. "Children need reasonable,
consistent limits that they participate in shaping, limits that are
modeled by their parents rather than shaped by rewards and punishment
for compliance," he said. "They also need to be affirmed and loved
as persons of dignity as they learn to be disciplined disciples."

Plemon T. El-Amin, Masjid Imam of the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam,
offered the Islamic perspective on corporal punishment. First and
foremost, he pointed out, "A child is a trust from God who doesn't
belong to parents, he comes through parents, and therefore we should
treat him as a property of God in a most sacred way."

Within this spirit of compassion and caring, El-Amin explained that
Islam sanctions three ways to correct children's behavior: first,
admonish verbally; second, isolate or restrict; third, use corporal
correction that does not bruise or scar and is given with intent to
remedy or help.

"When my grandparents said to me, 'This hurts me more than it's
going to hurt you,' they really meant it," El-Amin said, adding
that he knew his grandmother's spankings were not conducted out of
anger. "She would make an appointment for me to come by her house on
Saturday for my spanking. I knew her love was great. Parents need to
ask themselves if they are correcting behavior because the child is
bothering them, or because if they don't, this behavior is going to
become a problem for the child."

He further explained that in the Koran, the word for striking
physically is also used for striking the intellect or the soul. "The
best method of discipline is to strike the soul, or the consciousness
of the child."

Trenny Stovall, director of the Dekalb County Child Advocacy Center,
offered her legal perspective on the issue by explaining that the State
of Georgia allows corporal punishment, but that children are to be
protected from excessive or unreasonable physical injury by the Cruelty
to Children Act and the Family Violence Act. These protections prove
challenging because they can be very broadly defined in court, she
said, but even more inconsistent is the application of protection to
children who live in diverse communities. "Many of our residents come
from countries where things such as mutilation of girls, hot coins
being placed on skin, and binding children so they won't eat after a
certain time, are cultural norms. We try to explain that in the United
States, this is excessive and unacceptable. We've had pretty good
success at teaching parents to stop this form of punishment."

Karen B. Baynes, a former Fulton County juvenile court associate judge
who now serves as deputy director for the Carl Vinson Institute of
Government at the University of Georgia, says that most people believe
it is their inherent right to discipline their children as they see
fit, and that they believe the law has gone too far in limiting this
right. "It is tough to determine when the law should step in and then
if we do remove children from the home, what is the plan to help
them?"

Martha A. Fineman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory,
challenged corporal punishment from a human rights perspective.
"Children are people, and they as much as adults are covered by
existing human rights treaties and are entitled to special
provisions," she said.

Fineman pointed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which calls for children to be equal with adults but given
special attention from the state because they are vulnerable. (The
United States and Somalia are the only two U.N. member countries that
have not adopted the Convention.)

"The concept of 'best interest of the child' should be the
primary consideration in all actions taken by adults concerning
children. This means that the interest of parents or the state are not
to be considered as primary or of superior importance," she said.

Further, Fineman added, "Ideally the state in policymaking would find
it necessary to conduct an impact analysis before making decisions that
affect children's interests. This idea that there should be some
mechanism to guarantee that children's interest have equal value in
decision-making is quite a radical thought."

Fineman contrasted the equal-rights gains women have made to those of
children. " Battery of intimate partners is no longer tolerated or
ignored; however similar evolution along egalitarian lines for children
has not kept pace. Battery of children by parents is still seen as
necessary 'discipline' by many, perhaps the result of misguided
ignorance, but certainly to be constitutionally tolerated or ignored
unless it passes over some high threshold on the way to abuse."

Fineman challenged the United States to adopt the UN Convention as a
remedy. "Our constitutional tradition has long recognized parental
rights and protected parental prerogatives - it used privacy to
shield parental practices detrimental to the well-being of children. By
contrast, the child protected by the Convention has the right to
'physical integrity' and requires the state to take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence while in the
are of parents or legal guardians."



###






http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm

On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

In spite of all the decades of research showing NO benefit of corporal
punishment over alternative methods, and showing continued potential for
harm over alternative methods, parents continue to fight for their
perceived "right" to hit their children in the name of discipline.

Which studies are those, LaVonne? The Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed
the "alternative methods" are worse!

And you continually refuse to respond to my followup comment to your
nonsense.

And you continually exposed your STUPIDTY!!!

They were three obvious punishments, and one that could and can be
easily delivered as punishment.

But you only outlaw spanking, right? Or are you calling for a ban
on all punishments?

That's not "alternative methods," Doan, that SOME alternative methods.

Hahaha! The logic of the anti-spanking zealotS. Some alternative methods
is not "alternative methods"???

Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with
considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's
more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed,
when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE.

He said that it is RARE - not normal! A fact that anti-spanking zealotS
like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your
standard!

Doan wrote:
On 20 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

In spite of all the decades of research showing NO benefit of corporal
punishment over alternative methods, and showing continued potential for
harm over alternative methods, parents continue to fight for their
perceived "right" to hit their children in the name of discipline.

Which studies are those, LaVonne? The Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed
the "alternative methods" are worse!
And you continually refuse to respond to my followup comment to your
nonsense.

And you continually exposed your STUPIDTY!!!

They were three obvious punishments, and one that could and can be
easily delivered as punishment.

But you only outlaw spanking, right? Or are you calling for a ban
on all punishments?

That's not "alternative methods," Doan, that SOME alternative methods.

Hahaha! The logic of the anti-spanking zealotS. Some alternative methods
is not "alternative methods"???

Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with
considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's
more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed,
when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE.

He said that it is RARE - not normal!

Quote and link, please.

A fact that anti-spanking zealotS
like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your
standard!

Quote and link to where he said "rare," Doan.

Here's what Nathan posted quoting Dr. Embry: "And no, these observations
were standardized, with two or more observers. I am not clear what
your question is about observations otherwise. We separated kids who
were "high rate" versus "low rate." The high rate ones were most
interesting; the low rate kids were rarely bad, and responding
quickly to the interventions. "

If you look at the chart, the five "high rate" children, (which would
not constitute "rare" at all, Doan, actually made great gains under the
program. Only four of them required a TO intervention, and only one at
that per child. Most were accompanied with, in the same 10 minute time
interval, a strong positive reinforcement as well; praise.

They went to No street entries for one child. And very few for the
others, ending the intervention period with a string of NO street entries.

Five out of twenty, Doan, would not be "rare." And this didn't even
refer to spanking.

And here, Doan, is the other mention of "rare."

"If I were to make a thumbnail of the findings (and informed by other
research), spanking kids who rowdy attention seekers (mostly boys) as
young children is likely to backfire and increase deviant behavior. This
is a functional, empirical assessment, not a moral or religious one.
This effect is almost certain if the positive attention for the child's
behavior is below accidental attention to negative.? Very nice
longitudinal data on this. It is the frequent reliance rather than
very, very rare reliance on spanking that seems to have adverse
effects. (All this follows a very nice mathematical law, called the
Matching Law.)"

Sound like he's claiming, with the use of the word, "Likely," it's
"rare" that children in fact increase deviant behavior when spanked?

His use of the word "rare" (rarely) here relates not to the "rare"
child, but to the deleterious effects of rare or frequent use of spanking.

You are still having language problems, it seems.

The paragraph by Dr. Embry following the quote above is very telling
when it comes to "rare," or not.

And you'll note he most certainly DID DO A STUDY ON SPANKING, STUPID.

"Parenthetically, the Safe Playing study was being done concurrent to
our other work at the university of kansas parenting program, where we
did direct observations of families at home using very precise
observational codes every 10-seconds, with independent observers.

About 85% of the sample had open case files with child protective
services, and our observers routinely witnessed what can only be
described as physical hitting (spanking, slapping, pinching, etc.) many
times per hour in about 80% of the families (85% x 80% = 68%). We never
observed such things in the normative families. These families had very,
very low rates of positive attention, very high rates of negative
attention and the children were singularly awful."

He's not talking about the "normative families," but in fact the
physically punished children.

This goes clearly to two things. That the existence of such children is
not rare, and the prevalence of hitting them is not rare...not at that
rate of hitting.

You are wrong, as usual, on all counts, Doan.

Or you can show me where he said, based on my comments I'll re quote for
you, that 'He said that it is RARE - not normal!' Your claim.

Here's our exchange again:

Kane: Compare them, for instance, to Dr. Embry's program he tested with
considerable success and his claim yet again, with citations of other's
more specific work, that his experience was that children do indeed,
when spanked, move to preform the unwanted behavior MORE.

Screeching hysterical monkeyboy claims: He said that it is RARE - not
normal! ...

Show us the quote, Doan.

Or admit you are either stupid or lying.

Where did you get this stupid idea that he said it was rare, Doan?

From Nathan. HE made that interpretation of Embry's comments. And it
was a mistaken assumption or interpretation on Nathan's part.

Here is Nathans erroneous assumption from his comments in the Response
from Dr. Embry thread, where Nathan addressed me in argument:

"I draw two important lessons from what Dr. Embry wrote. First,
positive attention is important. Situations where children want
attention so badly that they feel a need to misbehave in order to get it
should be, at most, extremely rare."

Nothing in Embry's statements had an "attention" getting factor
involved, though doubtless he would have an opinion about that. I do.
Mine is that more hitting results in the need for more hitting in these
less than "rare" children.

The child is trained, or trains the parent, to give attention in the
form of negatives. Yelling, hitting, pushing, shoving, name calling,
it's all part of a pattern all too often.

Where do you think CPS physical abuse cases come from, Doan? Virtually
every one includes a parental claim they are trying to "discipline" a
"difficult" child.

And that would amount to 10s of thousands of cases per year, Doan.
Hardly what we could call "rare."

You let Nathan influence you with his questionable interpretation of Dr.
Embry's comments in the thread.

Nathan also jumped to this conclusion, a fault I find more common in
you, in fact a serious and questionable trait going either to morals or
mindset from your own past experience being spanked...the capacity to
see what you wish to see and reject and actually NOT see what you do not
wish to:

"But as long as parents give their children plenty of positive
attention, Dr. Embry's views indicate that such adverse reactions are
atypical, not normal."

I saw nothing in Dr. Embry's statements that would support giving lots
of spanking AND giving positive attention would result in atypical
adverse reactions. He's unlikely to have even found such parental
behavior in fact. They simply don't go together all that much.

This statement of Nathan's was made AFTER Dr. Embry discussed the study
concurrent to the Safe Play study, the one he did on parental discipline
methods IN THE HOME. Which shows a high level of spanking...NOT rare,
and NOT with a "rare" population.

So, let's see you justify your stupid tradition of making this kind of
statement:

"
A fact that anti-spanking zealotS
like you have been deliberately omitted, "lying by omission" by your
standard!"

What zealots were deliberately omitted?

And how would that constitute lying by omission by any standards at all?

What a stupid statement to make, Doan.

Up to par with your attempt to define the line between spanking and
abuse by refusing to recognize that the variable conditions are too
complex to calculate.

Spanking has a much higher risk factor than other methods, even non CP
punishment alternatives, though I don't care for them either.

So why spank?

Finally, it's the stupid and poorly defended position of folks such as
yourself that have brought about the need for a law against spanking.

If you were objective, if you attempted to influence parents away, with
social sanctions, from spanking as acceptable, there would be no need
for a law.

Instead you lie to yourself, spend years attacking ONLY those against
spanking, and claim, as though you were neutral, "let parents decide for
themselves."

You are deluding yourself, and have been for years, Doan.

Kane