never smack your kids

their rebellious natures hate it

you will feel morally superior

until the reality of what you have helped produce becomes evident

The irony is that many children who do not learn to respect other people and their property, from the occasional whack by a loving parent while they are under age, learn it soon enough when they enter the criminal justice system, usually from a gorilla in their cell called Bubba with "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his knuckles.

Criminals were never

Beaten as kids. They never

Smack their kids either.

[Great argument... Not]

shintaro,

Your argument is illogical.

The sort of brutalisation hardened criminals report as children could have many reasons - one of which may be to arouse sympathy in bleeding hearts who always want to find someone else to blame. But even if true, as undoubtedly is in some cases, those beatings were always illegal under assault and battery and other laws. Some dogs bite people and occasionally maul people to death. Should we now ban all dogs?

Your example also belies a worrying moral relativism in modern society. Why would you give the same credence to what a criminal says as that which a concerned parent says about the right the discipline their child? Do you make your argument because you feel it would allow all parents to better raise their children (even those with poor parenting skills who may not have the intelligence to raise their children without smacking) or because it gives you a warm inner glow?

I don't have children and would hope I would be able to raise any without smacking but I realise there are parents who struggle with managing their lives. they lurch from crises to crises and simply don't have the parenting skills to raise a child with no threat of punishment. Anyone with any sense would say smacking is best avoided but how can we disempower parents to raise their children and then expect them to take responsibility for their childrens actions? We can't. Parents, as happens already, will simply throw their hands in the air and say I can't manage him you (ie society) deal with him. The criminal justice system ends up picking up the pieces.

A sharp smack or few good slaps across the the legs or bum are perfectly good methods of disciplining young children where words have failed. Like all discipline, physical punishment must be fair - as in it is warranted and fits the crime.

Physical punishment works well with younger children as they are the most likely to benefit from fast response and the fright and hurt factor. They quickly learn that the parent means business and to ignore commands will earn an unpleasant consequence. More often than not, such children do not need much discipline of any kind as they become well socialised and behaved at an early age.

Older children whose development has reached the stage where more sophisticated methods of cause & effect work well should only have the spectre of a few good ones on the bum as a last resort.

So lets look at the truly abused child. The ones who do need the law's protection. What usually happens when such children are identified? If abuse and/or neglect is severe enough the child will most likely be removed by DOCS or whatever name Childrens Services are known by in the various States and placed in temporary foster care. Now regardless of the levels of neglect, cruelty, injuries, social dysfunction, substance abuse, chronic mental illness involved - one thing is virtually guaranteed. The child/children will be returned to the parent/s responsible for their misery. This will often happen multiple times. This is because 'Social Engineers' like our Anti-Smack advocate decided a few decades back that biological families should be kept together at all costs. The biggest cost being the future and often the life of the poor child. FAIL!

So do we need more laws? I think not! Do we need less 'Academics' and more common sense? I think so.

Patmalar Ambikapathy - butt out and blow off back to the UK.

Paul L - there is not one issue raised by Suzeonline that is irrelevant to this thread. Why have you chosen to misunderstand and twist Suzeonline's clear viewpoints? Why are you targetting Suze on each of her points [and no-one else]when Suze's points reflect the majority of posters?

Suze's viewpoints are that a smack given to children when doing something dangerous, as a one off or rarity, is entirely different to child abuse, whereby a child is beaten for trivial behaviour. [refer to the scenarios and situations Suze outlined].

Suze has successfully/healthily and safely raised daughters now young adults in addition to being a nursing sister, therefore, it is quite obvious that Suze should know the difference between a smack and child abuse PaulL.