Did you get the cane at school?

Originally Posted by BanannaMan

I think a lack of discipline both in schools and at home has greatly contributed to many of the problems we have in todays society.

I agree to a point, and think it is the duty of parents (and schools to a lesser extent) to punish children for bad behaviour. Punishment is only effective if a child fears it (and they fear much else than simple pain), and learn why what they were doing is wrong.

Only in my first year of school were teachers able to administer spankings, and I was spanked once but I couldn't for the life of me tell you what for.

What is interesting (to me at least) is the number of people who seem to have been beaten numerous times. If it is such an effective deterrent, then one beating would be enough - the mere threat on subsequent occasions would have them shaking in their plimsolls.

There is little (if any) evidence that corporal punishment is effective against children (except folk saying it never did them no harm), and a small amount suggesting it can actually propagate violent and destructive behaviour.

[maviczap]

Originally Posted by BanannaMan

+1

I think a lack of discipline both in schools and at home has greatly contributed to many of the problems we have in todays society.

I think it starts at home, so if there's no discipline at home its only going to carry on at school.

My kids have been brought up to understand whats right & wrong, the same way I was.

I see numerous examples of badly behaved kids everyday who aren't disciplined by their parents and even my 5 year old knows its not right

How you fix it is an impossible question to answer

[TamSV]

Discipline is absolutely the key. But that doesn't require administering physical punishment. I'm a strict parent and don't tolerate bad behaviour, but I've never smacked my daughter and don't intend to ever do so.

Other parents will do as they see fit and I certainly won't criticise them. I've got no special god-given skills when it comes to parenting. Most of us are just doing our best.

But adults hitting other peoples kids? That just doesn't sit well with me.

Originally Posted by simesb

Don't mind at all, but it is not my intention to come across that way. I am liberal, but not a tree hugger. I know it is unfashionable around here at the mo, but I just don't believe that violence is appropriate punishment in a modern society. I appear to be in a minority.

I am with you in that minority.

I also love how if you oppose something like this, certain members of the .org brand you as a "tree hugger". If that is the case and by their own rational, it is safe to assume that they are right-wing fascists

I think we live in more enlightened times and realise that some adults gain sadistic (verging on sexual) pleasure from hitting a weaker human (child) without recourse. It goes against our own inbuilt moral codes to hit a more vulnerable person so often something else is going on (sadism). Especially a teacher. Doctors and the hippocratic oath and all that.

My father was schooled by Jesuit Brothers in the 1950's, he had maths beaten into him with a paddle for 3 years. There was one brother who was more feared, used more force, than the rest. He was basically, my dads words "a sadistic celibate" (sexual tension & violence again). However my dad did go on to be a nuclear physicist so perhaps their is another lesson about human nature (were all lazy *******s, who need a bit of the stick).

Also its a bit like the death penalty, the state doesn't want to be seen sanctioning child abuse.

we had the belt at school. was in the queue to have it in maths class, but the bell rang before it was my turn. I can still remember the sound of a blackboard duster flying thru the air, you always ducked as it might hit you, despite the target being the person behind you.

Originally Posted by no_akira

Also its a bit like the death penalty, the state doesn't want to be seen sanctioning child abuse.

Why is it that all the Nay sayers in this thread try to compare a quick whack to correct bad behaviour with Child abuse when they are CLEARLY entirely different things?

Yes, there are people that get a perverted kick out of caning, but they are in the absolute minority.

The whole idea of caning/belting/etc is that is supposed to be uncomfortable to both receive and watch. Its *punishment*.

Balanced human beings realise that its not a nice thing! Its not supposed to be a nice thing. Its supposed to be a horrible thing! Its a Punishment.

Being caned, hit with a slipper or a belt in a short burst as direct punishment for being bad is NOT the same as systematic abuse.

Thats why its called *abuse*.

The child MUST be made to realise that the punishment is a direct result of his/her actions or it is abuse. Caning someone without telling them why they have been caned IS abuse.

But thats not what we are talking about here.

I think its very easy to differentiate between a "short sharp shock" and "abuse" and those trying to blur the lines are doing so deliberately.

Those that suffered "Abuse" should not blanket dismiss a very effective method of behavioural correction [caning] simply because they were abused.

It is NOT the same.


C

[widepants]

Originally Posted by Berlin

Why is it that all the Nay sayers in this thread try to compare a quick whack to correct bad behaviour with Child abuse when they are CLEARLY entirely different things?

Yes, there are people that get a perverted kick out of caning, but they are in the absolute minority.

The whole idea of caning/belting/etc is that is supposed to be uncomfortable to both receive and watch. Its *punishment*.

Balanced human beings realise that its not a nice thing! Its not supposed to be a nice thing. Its supposed to be a horrible thing! Its a Punishment.

Being caned, hit with a slipper or a belt in a short burst as direct punishment for being bad is NOT the same as systematic abuse.

Thats why its called *abuse*.


The child MUST be made to realise that the punishment is a direct result of his/her actions or it is abuse. Caning someone without telling them why they have been caned IS abuse.

But thats not what we are talking about here.

I think its very easy to differentiate between a "short sharp shock" and "abuse" and those trying to blur the lines are doing so deliberately.

Those that suffered "Abuse" should not blanket dismiss a very effective method of behavioural correction [caning] simply because they were abused.

It is NOT the same.


C

+1

Originally Posted by Berlin

Those that suffered "Abuse" should not blanket dismiss a very effective method of behavioural correction [caning] simply because they were abused.

The problem is that there is little evidence to show that it is a very effective method of behavioural correction.

A bunch of adults standing round in the pub saying that a beating never did them no harm in their youth is not the same as proper scientific study. And the studies that have been done seem to be fairly inconclusive (some actually seem to show that it can start a pattern of violence and destructiveness)

Caning may effective for the punisher, because it is quick and easy to do and may allow them to vent some frustration with the child's behaviour. It is generally more time effective than actually dealing with the root issue. I'm yet to be convinced that it is effective for the child.

But caning should never be carried out when the person thats doing the caning is angry. In fact it should be conveyed to the person receiving the punishment that the person doing the caning DOES NOT enjoy the act either. That adds an emotional guilt that the person doing it has been made to do something unpleaseant too, as a direct result of the childs misbehaviour. it increased the effectiveness

That's why the pupil was sent to the headmaster for caning. The person administering the caning should be calm.

A professional Bircher was exactly that. Calm and dissacociated from the crime / Bad behaviour. He was imparetial and not affected by the events so wasn't seeking retribution or revenge.

Caning is not to get something off someones chest, it is it instill a pain/shock reflex to a bad behaviour.

and the shock is more important than the pain.

Its supposed to have the outcome of the person being caned to directly think" I'll not do that again"

Not to make the caner feel better.

When I was belted as a child it was in a set method. Upstairs, trousers down, "Now you know why you are getting this..." Mother present so I couldn't go off and seek sympathy and play one parent off against the other. Parents in Steadfast, united front.

WHACK, WHACK, WHACK.

Cry, apologise. Not do it again.

As I said in my second post in the original thrad. It would be very simple to see how effective this is. A 50/50 trial and see who re-offends.

I'd put a significant amount of the belt/cane being most effective.

I'm sick of our youngest coming home from school and saying "They're treating the bad lads again, they're going off on a trip to... XYX this time. How come we're good and don't get to go off and do XYZ"

Rewarding folks for being bad? Is that the answer? it certainly put the backs up of those being good.

C