Corporal Punishment “Children”

Corporal Punishment “Children”

Name:

Institution:

Corporal Punishment “Children”

Clark, J. (2004). Against the corporal punishment of children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(3), 363.

Clark exudes his stance against corporal punishment of children by arguing against the advantages provided by John Wilson for this strategy. For Wilson, as Clark (2004) provides, corporal punishment possesses six benefits. These benefits range from its cost-effectiveness and simple administration, effectual deterrence, effective reform, adaptive pain, fairness in disliking pain and lack of lasting damage. Nonetheless, the author asserts that the advantages provided by Wilson are not factual. Based on this, the author admits that corporal punishment, even if utilized by teachers and parents, is ethically inexcusable. In order to accomplish this, Clark (2004) scrutinizes each advantage provided by Wilson. Foremost, he asserts that there are other alternative forms of cost-effective punishments.

Secondly, the author also argues that corporal punishment is not an effectual deterrent since there are people that derive sexual pleasure from physical pain. In addition, non-corporal punishment also possesses effective deterrence. Third, Clark (2004) asserts that it is irrational to surmise that the deterrence of this form of punishment leads to reformation. This is because intrinsic motivation is highly valuable as extrinsic motivation. Fourth, the author argues adaptive pain based on the actuality that the same benefit is also present in non-corporal pain. Fifth, the author asserts that people are not equal in their dislike of pain based on the notion that some actually derive sexual gratification from it. Lastly, Clark (2004) argues that Wilson’s view of permanent damage is inconsistent since corporal punishment has the capability of causing damage.

Gershoff, E. (2013). Spanking and child development: We know enough now to stop hitting our children. Child Development Perspectives, 7(3), 133-137.

Gershoff provides a discourse on the use of spanking as a parental strategy and its coinciding ineffectiveness in child development. For the author, spanking is a type of violence against children regardless of its use over history. Based on the long-term utilization of this approach, it is understandable why parents are skeptic regarding the culmination of spanking. Irrespective of this, Gershoff asserts that there is a correlation between spanking and the resultant childhood behavior. Additionally, the author provides an examination of the reasons behind the use of spanking. This provides an objective understanding of its widespread utilization in the United States. For Gershoff (2013), parents spank their children in order to punish misconduct and decrease repetition. Moreover, parents do this in order to enhance the susceptibility of desirable conduct. Based on these reasons, Gershoff attempts to understand these undesirable conducts, which comprise short and enduring non-compliance as well as aggression.

Irrespective of attempting to reduce these undesirable behaviors among children, the author asserts that spanking is unproductive. This is because it does not stick to the situations, which determine the effectiveness of punishment. In addition to this, Gershoff also adds that spanking is ineffectual since it imposes negative emotions such as anger, sadness and fear, which restrict the capability of the children to adopt the disciplinary messages from parents. Apart from these inefficiencies, Gershoff provides that spanking possess extensive negative side effects. Based on meta-analyses studies, the author is able to connect spanking with childhood delinquency, childhood and maturity mental health defects, criminal conduct in adulthood, adverse child-parent associations and enhanced susceptibility of children towards physical abuse. Based on this, professional organizations discredit it since it also violates human rights.

Gunnoe, M. (2006). Book Reviews [Review of the book Corporal punishment of children in theoretical perspective, by M. Donnelly & M. Straus]. Journal of Marriage & Family, 68(2), 530-531.

Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe provides an intricate synopsis on corporal punishment in the context of Michael Donnelly and Murray Straus’s deductions. Based on this, Donnelly and Straus provide further evidence regarding corporal punishment that will be accessible for researchers of this respective subject. In order to provide an extensive understanding of corporal punishment, the authors focused on delineating the topic of discourse from other perspectives eminent in specific theories. In addition to this, the authors also focused on identifying the aspects of the subject most explainable by the theory and correlating the hypothesis with other bodies of knowledge. Based on this, corporal punishment underwent research via relative, psychosomatic and sociological approaches (Gunnoe, 2006).

In order to support their opposition against corporal punishment, various authors within the book view the technique as possessing adaptive and maladaptive regardless of its use as an effectual parenting strategy. Regardless of the opposition against corporal punishment, the authors exercise impartiality by surmising that corporal punishment possesses the ability of assuming an adaptive responsibility in various circumstances. In addition, other contributors oppose corporal punishment and view it as a form of parental aggression. Based on this, authors urge parents to consider the influence imposed by the child’s physical environment and the parental relationships in behavior adjustment.

Han, S. (2011). Probability of corporal punishment: Lack of resources and vulnerable students. Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 420-430.

Han provides that the degree of corporal punishment in educational institutions correlates with the availability of teacher training and violence prevention schemes within these organizations. Based on a research performed in 362 government schools in the United States regarding corporal punishment, results were able to illustrate that teachers possessed fewer probabilities of utilizing corporal punishment due to the accessibility of violence preclusion and teacher instruction programs (Han, 2011). In addition, the outcome also identified that the possibility of using corporal punishment was high in schools with a higher population of minorities as well as special education learners. Based on this, the author asserts that minorities and special education learners cause significant disputes in public schools.

Based on the research performed by Han, it is clear that the author advocates for alternative strategies of punishment other than corporal punishment. This is in accordance to the relationship it possesses with violence in educational institutions. Based on the research findings, Han illustrates the effect of teacher and student education programs in government schools. For the author, the lack of such strategic programs only increases the probability of teachers to utilize corporal punishment in order to regulate behavior among students. The reason for this is due to the low use of corporal punishment in schools that have such programs. However, Han (2011) also emphasizes further research on corporal punishment in order to reconsider them as beneficial policies.

Lenta, P. (2012). Corporal punishment of children. Social Theory & Practice, 38(4), 689-716.

Lenta attempts on illustrating whether corporal punishment for children possess any degree of moral permissibility. For the author, every variant of punishment requires compelling justification since each possesses a coercive effect on the respective subject. However, Lenta also provides that corporal punishment is significantly different from other types of punishment. This is because it imposes superficial pain upon children who are unable to bear in comparison with adults (Lenta, 2012). Because of this negative consequence, it requires persuasive justification concerning the types of physical punishments that children should not undergo. Based on this, Lenta examines the different philosophies that argue for corporal punishment. Even though he conducts an objective approach towards them, Lenta illustrates a formidable opposition towards corporal punishment; a view also supported by all of the discussed authors. For instance, the author does not approve consequentialist and retributivist justifications (Lenta, 2012).

The reasoning behind disagreement of the consequentialist justification is because the benefits that arise from corporal punishment do not outweigh the demerits. Accordingly, Lenta also argues against retributivist rationale since children possess insufficient capability to reason morally and to sustain self-control (Lenta, 2012). In addition to his arguments against corporal punishment, Lenta argues for certain rights of children, such as those that focus on mistreatment. Nonetheless, Lenta exercises objectivity by differentiating corporal punishment from other malpractices such as abuse. By doing this, the author is able to focus on the defense supporting corporal punishment in terms of convenience, expression, unpleasantness and tolerance. Regardless of these views, Lenta establishes an impartial stance against corporal punishment by emphasizing on its demerits.

Romano, E., Bell, T., & Norian, R. (2013). Corporal punishment: Examining attitudes toward the law and factors influencing attitude change. Journal of Family Violence, 28(3), 265-275.

Romano, Bell and Norian illustrate the considerable degree for corporal punishment within the society regardless of the negative impact imposed by it on children. Accordingly, much of the research conducted illustrates that majority of Canadian parents oppose removal of Section 43, which allows corporal punishment. Indeed, Romano, Bell and Norian (2013) assert that corporal punishment possesses a variety of negative childhood developmental consequences based on studies conducted on the correlation between immediate compliance and different techniques of punishments. According to the United States and Canadian psychological and pediatric organizations, every form of corporal punishment should be restricted from parents. Instead, parents can consider the utilization of alternative approaches that may exude discipline on children without harming them or their psychological constitutions. Nonetheless, the theme that perplexes the authors is the manner in which parents considerably advocate for corporal punishment.

For these authors, attitudes that support violent behavior possess a significant correlation with violent conduct. Regardless of this assertion, large populations in Canada and North America in general utilize a certain form of corporal punishment. Nonetheless, Romano, Bell and Norian identify reasons that cause parents to do this. The most notable is the actuality that these parents underwent a more coarse form of corporal punishment. Because of this, research has determined that there is a correlation between experienced punishment and current parental attitudes. Consequently, the authors provide recommendations that will assist in modifying the attitudes towards corporal punishment. For instance, Romano, Bell and Norian advocate for legal modifications of corporal punishment laws. In addition to these recommendations, the authors also advocate for public education regarding the negative effects of corporal punishment on children.

References

Clark, J. (2004). Against the corporal punishment of children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(3), 363.

Gershoff, E. (2013). Spanking and child development: We know enough now to stop hitting our children. Child Development Perspectives, 7(3), 133-137.

Gunnoe, M. (2006). Book Reviews [Review of the book Corporal punishment of children in theoretical perspective, by M. Donnelly & M. Straus]. Journal of Marriage & Family, 68(2), 530-531.

Han, S. (2011). Probability of corporal punishment: Lack of resources and vulnerable students. Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 420-430.

Lenta, P. (2012). Corporal punishment of children. Social Theory & Practice, 38(4), 689-716.

Romano, E., Bell, T., & Norian, R. (2013). Corporal punishment: Examining attitudes toward the law and factors influencing attitude change. Journal of Family Violence, 28(3), 265-275.