here is my paper! As mentioned in a diff. post, I believe in coherence between the bible and science today so if studies (and lots of them) show a certain trend then it should be backed up in the bible. If its not, then perhaps there is a cultural difference in the bible that is perhaps not applicable today etc. Anyways here's the common day evidence on CP (corporal punishment). Please keep in mind taht this was written for a class with class requirements, so there are emphasis' that aren't relative to this forum. Thanks! (eg: the title was mandatory for all assignments etc.)

Tolerable and Intolerable Diversity in Families: The Limits of Relativism
The limits of family practice tolerance and limits on the rights of individuals in society as a whole is important in order to protect everyone’s wellbeing. It is similar to the dilemma of the commons in this way, and this will be examined in detail by looking at a common family practice and its implications for society transgenerationally. Corporal punishment is a common family practice in America and it is one that has been ruled to be within the realm of parental rights. This paper will argue that children on the receiving end of corporal punishment are at a disadvantage developmentally to children who are not, and are at risk for many disorders later on in life as adults. In this way we as a society are damaging ourselves in the long-term by this practice and by the same token it ought to be criminalized.
The argument that parents and not governments are best suited to determine the needs of their children is misleading. On the face of it most people would agree, especially as government is often negatively stereotyped. The truth is that for the most part, laws come about in order to protect an individual’s rights, the rights of the minorities, and in general to set boundaries to protect everyone living in a society. There are many options for good child rearing, and none of them involve corporal punishment; in this sense the criminal code could be altered and parents would still be free to choose their parenting method out of many alternatives to punishment. First, let us define what is being talked about when using the term corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment for the purposes of this paper includes such acts as spanking, swatting or otherwise physically hitting a child to invoke punishment. (Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997) This does not refer to child abuse, or any intensive physical or sexual hitting or touching. (Gershoff, 2002) The behaviours under question are what most people would find to be mild physical punishment, leaving no physical damage to the child. (McCord, 1997) Many studies are now showing that despite the fact that there is no physical damage to the child, the cognitive damage and longterm negative effects of corporal punishment are huge. These effects not only are damaging to the individual who was subject to corporal punishment, but also affect society as we are responsible for these people as they make their way through the school system, courts, jail, and adulthood.
Corporal punishment is a fairly common way to discipline children today, as many as ninety percent of children receive corporal punishment around the age of six. (Sarason & Sarason, 2002) Corporal punishment occurs mostly with young children as a way to get them to behave, and then declines later on in life with very few parents hitting their children past the age of fifteen. (Sarason & Sarason, 2002) Still, this type of parenting technique is breathtakingly high in occurrence across all ages and there are many reasons why we should be concerned. (Straus & Stewart, 1999)
Physical punishment has been shown in studies to only increase short term compliance with parental demands, and lower empathy in children. (Gershoff, 2002; Atlas & Peppler, 1998; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) When children are hit by parents, they only learn to behave when the parent is around; some children who come from neglectful homes also learn to hit more. This is because these children crave attention as do children in general, and when they hit someone, the parent intervenes and they have just managed to positively reinforce the child’s hitting behaviour. (Holden, Coleman, & Schmidt, 1995)
Teaching children empathy has been correlated with less aggressive behaviour and may be a good technique to try and use instead of corporal punishment. (Berk, 2003) When children are hit to punish their behaviour, they only think of the punishment they are receiving and it takes their minds off of the wrong they have done to the victim of their misbehaviour. If children are taught instead to put themselves in the shoes of the victim, their behaviour tends to improve. (Berk, 2003)
Furthermore, Bandura and other behavioural scientists have successfully shown that children tend to model parental behaviour. In a classic experiment with a Bobo doll, an adult went into the room in the experimental condition and beat up the doll. Children were allowed to watch and then subsequently allowed into the room to play with the doll. It was found that children tended to copy the behaviour of adults. (Bandura, 1977) In the control condition, when adults did not hit the doll, children tended not to as well. This is strong evidence to show that when parents invoke corporal punishment to deal with their children’s misbehaviours, they are really modeling a behaviour that the child is then likely to internalize, leading to a more violent, or deviant and troublesome child. (Berk, 2003)
Indeed, a study conducted in 1994 showed that children’s undesirable behaviour was strongly correlated to the use of corporal punishment in homes. (Gershoff, 2002) (Pediatrics, 1996) Parents tend to use this technique because it gives such quick results, but the results in the end are quite harmful. (Children’s Hospitals and Clinics, 2003) The family unit here is a “training ground for aggressive behaviour” as “the same child-rearing practices that undermine moral internalization and self-control are related to aggression. (Berk, 2003, p. 513) Love withdrawal, power assertion, physical punishment, and inconsistent discipline are linked to antisocial behaviour from early childhood through adolescence.” (Berk, 2003, p. 513) Really, by using corporal punishment to get the immediate gains, parents risk having an uncontrollable child or adolescent later on.
Out of all the parenting styles, the one most likely to incorporate physical punishment is the authoritarian style. (Berk, 2003) Children that were subject to this style of parenting in their lives are more likely later to be “less well adjusted… and are often anxious and unhappy.” (Berk, 2003, p. 569) These same children are also more likely to have drug and alcohol problems as well as higher rates of antisocial behaviour, anxiety disorders and depression. (Natural Life, 1999) These disorders last well into adulthood, and often cause problems for society in general.
At the macro level, it can be seen that severe punishment does nothing to dissuade violent crimes. In fact, in the United States, places that advocate the death penalty for severe crimes have in turn a much higher rate of violent crime. It would seem that people see the state as a model here, and for some, their behaviour takes after it. (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Fehr, 2001) This certainly would be supported by the previously mentioned studies about corporal punishment increasing delinquency and psychological disorder in children and adolescents. (Children’s Hospitals and Clinics, 2003; Natural Life, 1999; Sarason & Sarason, 2002) In a 1979 twenty year longitudinal study, youths who had been subject to corporal punishment when younger were later on retraced and checked for any existence of a criminal record. Many of these people, when found later had criminal records, with about one third of them having committed a violent crime. The same study later concluded that corporal punishment as a child rearing practice was a strong predictor of delinquency later in life. (McCord, 1997)
Going to the micro level that a case study provides, corporal punishment was a commonly used method of parenting in my household. It is obvious to me that it contributed to lower self esteem as an adolescent, depression and rebelliousness. Similar to the results shown in the previous studies, the corporal punishment only managed to move bad behaviour out of the home, and into the school area where my records will show a higher than normal tendency to get involved in physical altercations with classmates.
So what options should parents be limited to? What is an acceptable way to parent and not create problem children for society at large? The first concept to be looked at is that of insufficient punishment. The tenet of this theory is that people will look to external justifications for their behaviour, and in the case of a lack of this justification they will look internally for it. (Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963) This sounds complex but consider: a child that is punished physically by a parent for hitting a sibling will be more likely to do it again because the parent has given an external justification for it. Children who are given a mild form of discipline for the same act must rationalize why they committed the act in the first place- the child will know that they stopped hitting their sibling and will not have the external justification of knowing that the only reason they did stop was because their parents punished them. They therefore are more likely to reason that they stopped hitting their sibling because they do not wish to hit their sibling. (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Fehr, 2001) This is insufficient punishment: the child stops their misbehaviour that they wanted to do because they do not have the external justification in their mind for continuing the behaviour. In essence then, they experience cognitive dissonance and to get rid of it they must convince themselves that they did not really want to hit their sibling anyway. (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Fehr, 2001) This is good evidence then for the view that milder forms of discipline are best.
Studies also show that parents who model forms of non aggressive behaviour in conflict situations will pass this way of behaving onto their children. In experiments with children, a group of kids watched another group being provoked and responding passively. These children were then put in a similar situation where they were provoked as well and they showed a low rate of aggressive behaviour. This compares favorably to the control group that was much more likely to aggress when provoked as they had not had a situation to model from. (Baron, 1972; Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1976; Vidyasgar, & Mishra, 1993) One can think of hockey games or soccer games, where the parents can often be very aggressive to those parents of children belonging to the other team; they don’t realize it, but they are doing their children a huge disservice.
The biggest key in successful parenting is to teach empathy to children. This can be done in a variety of ways. Certain programs in schools have taken on the task of asking kids reflexive questions designed to get them to think of the feelings and goals of others. Children who exit these programs “show much higher self-esteem, academic achievement, and lower aggression compared to those who have not participated in it.” (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Fehr, 2001, p. 463) Other studies have also shown a similar pattern of results with adults. When adults were primed to empathize with someone else’s situation, they were much less likely to show aggressive responses in a frustrating situation. (Baron, 1976) Beginning when children are very young, it is important to teach empathy, as it is linked with more pro-social and altruistic behaviour. (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) Judging by the obscene number of children that were raised in a similar manner to the way it was in my household, not enough children are getting the proper parenting that they need to become successful well adjusted adults in society. For this reason, although parents should be free to choose the way in which they raise their children, there should be laws against corporal punishment in the home, as it is a very poor option and impinges on the rights of the child. It also leads to a negative cycle in which that child, when he or she grows up is more likely to parent in the same way. This is shown by many studies linking modeling behaviour in children and lasting effects of delinquency and psychological maladjustment into adulthood. (Natural Life, 1999; Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Fehr, 2001; “Study Sees Problems,” 1999)
This brings about the issue of the dilemma of the commons. Classically stated the dilemma is a “situation in which everyone takes from a common pool of goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation, but that will disappear if overused.” (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Fehr, 2001, p. 564) This applies here because everyone in our society is allowed to have personal rights (referred to as ‘goods’ in the dilemma). This keeps society running fairly if no one abuses their rights by overstepping their personal boundaries and impinging on someone else’s rights. To put this in more concrete terms: people in Canada have the freedom of speech which allows them freedom from censorship. It would be going beyond this right, and impinging on someone else right if for example someone used their freedom of speech to gather a crowd and shout anti-Semitic messages in front of a synagogue. In the same way, parents are being allowed to trample on the rights of children by using corporal punishment. These children then grow up with a higher likelihood of social problems, suicide, delinquency and psychological maladjustment later in life. (Children’s Hospitals and Clinics, 2003; Natural Life, 1999) Parents by using corporal punishment are then going beyond their right as outlined in section 43 of the criminal code that says that "every school teacher, parent or person standing in place of a parent, is justified in using force by way of correction . . . if the force does not exceed what is reasonable." (“Board Backs Bill,” 1999) From the evidence given in this paper, corporal punishment is unreasonable in all cases of child rearing. Even in younger years that children will not actually be able to remember (a phenomenon known as ‘childhood amnesia’), the effects of corporal punishment will be felt as children will still learn and keep the consequences of the behaviour implicitly. (Berk, 2003; Thomas, 1999)
Why isn’t section 43 amended then to clearly state that corporal punishment, at home and in schools is not an acceptable way to chastise children? Many parents seem to fear being criminally charged if the law is altered and feel that it is impeding their rights as parents, who feel they have ownership over the child. (“Courting Parental Discipline,” 1999) Amazingly, only sixty-four percent of parents polled recently supported the use of corporal punishment- (“Spanking Poll,” 2004) amazing because studies show that at around the ages of four to six years, ninety percent of children are subject to corporal punishment. (Straus & Stewart, 1999) Rather than making criminals out of parents, it is the position of this paper that new parents should be enrolled in ‘parenting classes’ if involved in applying corporal punishment so that they are aware of the best way to nurture and discipline their children. This should be a government funded program that in the end would pay off, as society would be relieved of a great burden in its next generation. In reality, we are not protecting the rights of a minority group by upholding section 43 the way it is and are “making children second-class citizens.” (“Supreme Court,” 2003)
Religious groups and parents from different ethnic backgrounds with different beliefs may also oppose this. According to Biblical scripture, it is appropriate and necessary to punish misbehaviour of children with a thin rod. (Holy Bible, 1995) Many other groups no doubt have their own versions of a similar viewpoint. In order to respect these multicultural and religious boundaries, the same parenting classes would not be appropriate for these special groups. However, classes for parents who used corporal punishment could still be put in as long as it was sensitive to the culture it was dealing with. In this case it would be important to have members of that culture, who understand the practices work with helping new parents deal with alternate forms of parenting. A similar solution as the previous one, but with a twist. This would strike an acceptable balance between tolerance for special practices without being overly constraining and still respect the boundaries of multiculturalism that Canada is so proud of.
From the vast amount of evidence pointing to the harmful effects of corporal punishment, it is safe to declare this form of discipline as detrimental to society in general. It is more than about protecting the rights of children or parents at this point- these children are the parents of tomorrow, and by allowing corporal punishment we are seriously damaging the fabric of our society for generations to come. Many point to the fact that corporal punishment has always been used in the ‘good old days’ and had no deleterious effects, but in this they are wrong; the fact that it was used for so long in the past strengthens my argument that this type of parenting models itself to the next generation and propagates the problems that go with it. (“Parental Authority,” 2002) The solution lies in access to education for parents, rather than in legal punishment for them as this would be somewhat hypocritical. There is a valuable lesson to be learned from the dilemma of the commons: everyone should be allowed to have personal rights, but these rights should not be allowed to impede the rights of others. This is where the limits of tolerance should lie.

































References

A review of the research on corporal punishment. (2003). Children’s Hospitals and Clinics. Retrieved February 11, 2005, from http://xpedio02.childrenshc.org/stellent/groups/public/@web/@healthprof/documents/policyreferenceprocedure/032625.pdf

Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effect of severity of threat in the devaluation of forbidden behaviour. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 584-588.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Fehr, B. (2001). Social Psychology. (2nd Ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Atlas, R. S., & Peppler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86-99.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baron, R. A. (1972). Reducing the influence of an aggressive model: The restraining effects of peer censure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 266-275.

Baron, R. A. (1976). The reduction of human aggression: A field study on the influence of incompatible responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 95-104.

Berk, L. E. (2003). Child Development. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Byfield, T. (2002, January 20). Parental authority transferred to the state. The Calgary Sun: Alberta View.

Daniszewski, H. (1999, February 9). Board backs bill to kill spanking law. The London Free Press: Ontario.

Donnerstein, E., & Donnerstein, M. (1976). Research in the control of interracial aggression. In R. G. Green & E. C. O’Neal (Eds.), Perspectives on aggression (pp. 133-168). New York: Academic Press.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 701-778). New York: Wiley.

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Parental corporal punishment and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579.

Group asks Supreme Court to outlaw spanking. (2002, June 6). Globe and Mail: Toronto.


References

Holden, G. W., Coleman, S. M., & Schmidt, K. L. (1995). Why 3-year-old children get spanked: Determinants as reported by college-educated mothers. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 431-452.

Lowther, E. (1999, June 1). Courting parental discipline: Absurd changes in law would turn parents into criminals. The Calgary Sun: Calgary.

McCord, J. (1997). Commentaries on discipline. Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 215-218.

Proverbs 23:13-14, 13:24. Holy Bible: The NIV study Bible. (1995). Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan.

Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (2002). Abnormal psychology: The problem of maladaptive behaviour. (11th Ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc.


Unintended consequences of punishment. (1996). Pediatrics, 98(4), 832-835.

Study links spanking to psychiatric disorders. (1999). Natural Life, 70, 9.

Spanking poll backs ruling: Support use of force by parents. (2004, February 1). Winnipeg Sun.

Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 59.

Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behaviour of children. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761-767.

Thomas, V. (1999, October 6). Study sees problems in spanking: Drug, alcohol use tied to childhood discipline. Reuters: Toronto.

Vidyasgar, P., Mishra, H. (1993). Effect of modeling on aggression. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 50-52.