If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
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! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Catching up with Straus
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reference ... | 0:-> | Spanking | 1 | October 15th 06 11:35 PM |
Murray Straus, founder of the University of New Hampshire FamilyResearch Lab | 0:-> | Spanking | 69 | September 20th 06 02:11 AM |
Kids should work... | Doan | Spanking | 33 | December 10th 03 08:05 PM |
Kids should work... | Doan | Foster Parents | 31 | December 7th 03 03:01 AM |
Psych aggression to kids almost 100% Am families Straus sez | Fern5827 | Spanking | 10 | November 29th 03 10:03 AM |