what are the reasons for NO smacking?

[hermykne]

I AM CURIOUS to know, folling the other thread, as my dd is so bold at the moment nothing gets thru to her, even putting her in a time out room for 2/3mins, shes 3. she will keep on screaming and then hit something or push something over.
can last 40mins and no matter how you go over the matter with her when shes calm, she doesnt seem to learn anything,
and i suppose smacking will not make her understand either...
but what does smacking create or instill in behavourial patterns in yours opinions?

It is interesting that it is illegal to samck your 18 year old son but legal to smack a 17 year old one..

also the victorians were the ones who passed the law (spare the rod and spoil the child) to make children less protected than adults before that adults and children were treated equally in law

a lot of offences do take place in private but we still believe in having laws against those crimes

But QoQ, that article didn't say there were no effects on children who were smacked in countries where it is acceptable. It just says there are fewer effects than in countries where it is not the norm.

Oh heck, gonna parp myself now... PAAAARRRP!

Smoking cannabis is illegal.
Drink driving is illegal.
Receiving stolen goods is illegal.
Underage drinking is illegal.
Underage sex is illegal.
Copying and downloading cds is illegal.
Copying a cassette is illegal.
Stealing a stamp from work is still theft and therefore illegal.

How many people actually take any notice of this?

Beating children is illegal yet it happens so often. Why would a ban on smacking be any different at all? Im not saying its right, but how would banning it make any difference? You can place a ban on anything you want, that doesn't mean people will adhere to it.

because people break the law it doesn't mean it is poor law

But what can it achieve? How could someone justify, (if it came down to it). A woman being prosecuted for a once only smack to the bottom, when so many violent parents get away with beating the living crap out of their kids?

The NSPCC used to have adverts encouraging children to speak out. The biggest fear with these kids was that they wouldnt be believed. "No, said the NSPCC, we will believe you, dont be scared". Yeah, right. Rubbish. They sent me back home and im sure im not the only one.

there are offences against the person where the perpertrator is not caught, convicted or punished but it doesn'tmean that the law which says that act is a crime should not be on the statute books.

should we have laws against forced labour and slavery, I think we should but there are still slaves and false imprisonment in this country.

the general consensus is now against slavery and that would be the aim with regard to smacking.

there was a time when it was acceptable to have a slave trade but some forward thinking people campaigned against it

What if this was a law. A woman was seen smacking her child on the bottom for some particularly nasty episode, maybe he had endangered himself or others. What if this was the first time she had ever done this in his life. What if he had a very stable, loving caring family and an incredibly happy home life. She is prosecuted for it? I certainly would not be comfortable with that. There are so many children who suffer and their plight is ignored. Im parping myself now because i know, ive seen, so many worse things parents do which go unpunished. Perhaps i am tainted and because of my abuse my view is not how it should be. Interesting debate ladies, i bow out now.

If anyone is interested in research and expert comments, you can find interesting information here:

www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk/

Sorry, cannot do link. This alliance includes the NSPCC.

Message withdrawn

I love you Bloss!

bloss i refer you to my earlier example. what about a mentally disabled adult or someone with alzheimer's. you might have to control their lives, protect them, hold their hand, control their diet and lifestyle, all sorts. but it would be abusive to hit them.

QoQ i didn't say you read the daily mail and want to bring back hanging, i said that's why the govt didn't push it through, and couldn't afford to do so....it's the swing voters! i was responding to ladymucks post which implied that because the act didn't get through unamended it must be a bad thing (!?!)

I am not physically brave and would not relish being smacked, myself. I used to hate it happening as a child. But I would prefer to be smacked in anger than in a controlled way, I think. I can understand someone losing it because they're not perfect and I've wound them up. But people measuring a punishment in physical pain, however mild, just seems wierd to me.

THe idea of punishment/discipline is to show consequence to a behaviour, to learn etc etc.

It would be daft to implement any kind of discipline to someone with alzheimers! Ridiculous comparison IMO.

Sophable, the point that I was trying to make was that the Government recognises that there is a difference between a trivial smack and a whack and that criminalising trivial smacking will not help prevent abuse. You end up with bad law which cannot be reasonably enforced. If even this Government, for whom I do not have that much respect, can recognise the difference between a light smack and a whack, then why can't some MNers, whom I do respect, do the same?
I suspect that the fact that anti-smackers on this thread don't seem to perceive any difference will just continue to hold back the inevitable changes in attitude throughout society. Its the fear that people will be criminalised for doing trivial things that will continue to maintain public opinion against the ban.

i am drunk and refuse to comment

oh but please.

I smacked my Ds aged 2 on the leg because he would not get dressed in the morning. We were on a time limit and he simply refused. I got up an hour earlier than planned.

He did it again the next day, so I slapped him harder.

Now I hold my hand up when he plays up.This is day three and I don't know what I will do if he refuses.

What I said doesn't really apply to me at the moment as I DH is looking after DS because of the mad crafting thing.

But this situation is usual.

Boil his head with an egg probably.

Someone tell me how;

to dress a 2 yr old QUICKLY who doesn't want to be dressed.

how to calm them down .

Message withdrawn

I don't think it's right to smack. There are many other far more effective ways to discipline, it just takes imagination.

I always think about this heartbreakingly sad song by Loudon Wainwright III when the issue of smacking comes up-

Hitting You

Long ago I hit you
We were in the car
You were crazy in the backseat
It had gone too far
And I pulled the auto over
Hit you with all my might
I knew right away that it was too hard
And I'd never make it right

I was aiming for your buttocks
But I struck your outer thigh
You had on a bathing suit
And right before our eyes
Suntanned skin turned crimson
Where the hand had hit
And my palm stung from hitting you so hard
That I hurt it

Against the law in Sweden
Charges can be filed
Here it's all too common
A parent hits a child

On your face I saw the shock
And then I saw the pain
Then I saw the look of fear
The fear I'd strike again
Then I saw your anger
Your defiant pride
Then I saw one teardrop
The rest you kept inside

I said I was sorry
I tried to clean the slate
But with that blow I'd sown a seed
I saw it was too late

These days things are awful
Between me and you
All we do is argue
Like two people who are through
I blame you, your friends, your school
Your mother and MTV
Last night I almost hit you
That blame belongs to me

Long ago I hit you
We were in the car
You were crazy in the backseat
It had gone too far
And I pulled the auto over
And hit you with all my might
I knew right away that it was too hard
I'd never make it right

Maybe all discipline has an unpleasant side to it, maybe it has to if it is to be effective but smacking is very unimaginitive.

If done in anger it can be painful, if done in a calm way it still has a brutality to it, it's a physical response to an emotional/behavioural problem.

I think Ladymuck does have a good point. When people give the impression that they can't make the distinction between a light smack and a whacking thump, other people who might be in favour of kids not being allowed to be hit, will not be persuaded to support a law outlawing hitting, because they'll surmise that prosecutors will also not be able to tell the difference.