I don't agree with hitting at all. Its only ever done out of anger (message: when you're angry, just hit or lash out, don't try to find any other solution) and apparently its shown to have only negative benefits. So if it doesn't work, there doesn't seem much point in doing it. I was hit as a kid and it certianly didn't garner any respect for my parents. They had very poor communication and problem solving skills, so maybe that's why they did it. Having said that, the emotional manipulation they used to punish was actually worse than being hit, but i'm not sure what my point is with that.

@ funcioná!!!, just because people click 'disagree', doesn't mean you're wrong.
I'm casting my vote against spanking. If you're trying to teach your kids not to hit their siblings, hitting them yourself doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I was spanked when I was a small child and then later as an older child/teen, my mother slapped me across the face a lot for various crimes which included her not liking the look on my face. So that was also part of not wanting to spank or hit - because I didn't want their lives to be like mine was.

How is yelling very loudly better than an occasional smack on the bottom? My parents spanked me if I got out of control, but it's not like they'd start punching me if I wouldn't eat my broccoli. After a couple warnings, time out, a talking to, or whatever your steps may be, if your child is out of control, I'm not against a light smack on the bottom. If my children need it, they'll get spanked, though I doubt I'll pull down their pants, bend them over my knee and smack them repeatedly with a belt like my parents did, that seems pretty excessive. Screaming at your kids can be more damaging than spanking.

Honestly, I think being screamed at for an hour and a half hurt more than bare-bottom spankings.

Not true, my step-mum hit my little sisters hands as she tried to stick a knife into a powerpoint (or something like that). It seemed like an appropriate response which was effective as it shocked my little sister into realising that you should never ever do that.

That's about the only type of situation where I think hitting may be appropriate though.

The one or two times I did get a spanking as a child, the parent who did it was not angry at the time. It was used as punishment, not revenge. Further, I think that it's important to use both positive and negative reinforcement when raising children. If you only use positive reinforcement, you're more likely to get a kid who doesn't listen to you. If you only use negative reinforcement, the kid is going to hate you. I think there's a happy middle ground.

I tended to use punishments like taking away the Game Boy for the day or no television for a week. Just because you don't spank/hit someone doesn't mean you're only using positive reinforcement. Screaming and yelling isn't the only alternative to spanking/hitting.

I'm not saying that spanking is the only form of negative reinforcement there is, but whether a particular type of negative reinforcement is effective depends on the child in question. I was a rather stubborn kid and I tended to entertain myself with books, which my parents rightly hesitated to take away, so, while I didn't misbehave often, the one or two times I misbehaved enough to deserve it, I got a spanking. Some kids find the threat of their Game Boy being taken away enough of an incentive for it to be effective. In which case, it seems like a good solution to the problem.

The problem I will always have with spanking is that plenty of average Joe parents don't know where to draw the line. My mother didn't, and was constantly pushing over the line from "punishment" into physical abuse. In my community her behaviour was acceptable, even though it was also illegal at times (and how are kids to know that? We didn't until we were in our mid teens!) I saw the same things happening to loads of other kids. At any rate, those experiences have left me with a fairly strong opinion on the matter: Don't hit people. Even if they're children. Even if it's more effective than other negative reinforcement in some cases. It just makes excuses for those who edge over into abuse, and it strongly implies to kids that physical force and intimidation is a reasonable negotiation tactic. The societal harm and potential for abuse seems to drastically outweigh the fleeting benefits if might offer to desperate parents.

All that said, I don't think parents should be prosecuted for dishing out a light smack. Criticised and discouraged, definitely. I like what New Zealand has set up, where assaulting a child is illegal, but police can exercise discretion on whether or not to press charges. It's not a perfect system, but it begins to give children similar protections from assault to those that adults enjoy.

Maybe some people disagreed with my deleted opinion because I said that hitting children has no benefits. I see that you use the word "benefits" as a negative word too, because of my bad English, I thought that the word had a positive meaning only. In that case, I think that hitting children does have negative consequences in the future, if that is clearer.

Its not just an opinion, hitting is proven to have negative benefits only. It can even lower a childs IQ because smacking creates a state of fear and hinders the ability to learn, while talking to kids about behaviour will foster brain development. There are no positives to hitting. It doesn't work. Why do it?

I think Kiwi Tea's made the most commonsense argument:

Don't hit people.

If you understand that you are "spanking" not "beating" and that the subject of this is a child, I really don't see anything truly wrong with a little pop here and there. I think the problem comes when parents don't control themselves and begin to hit their children as if they were adults. Personally, growing up I got popped. One slap on the hand or bottom, when I was doing something inappropriate. And to me it was like putting my hand on a burner and finding out that it was hot. I tended not to do the action again because I didn't want the same results. And I think I am a better person for it.

You didn't provide a source, but I looked around for some studies. Despite sifting through pages of reports, everything linked to one study by the IVAT, an offshoot of a San Diego university.

One report does not make a consensus. Furthermore, the IQ difference stated was 2.8 points. If you know anything about how the IQ is measured, you'll know that 2.8 points is inconsequential. You will find that disparity in literally any two groups for any reason. It's accepted that a single subject could have an IQ -7/+7 points from the result due to the nature of the test. I do not have a particular stance on spanking, but these results are inadequate.

However, in my opinion, a child that doesn't receive actual parenting is worse off than a child being occasionally spanked for improper behavior. A teacher and a television will never be an acceptable replacement.

Eh, but that's for another thread.

You know that hitting adults is called battery and/or assault and is a crime, right?
The purpose of punishment is to teach some lesson. Something my kids did a lot was hit, kick and push each other. Hitting them doesn't make any sense if I'm trying to teach them not to be violent.
The best way to teach is by example and by modeling what you think is correct behavior. I'm not saying that I am or was perfect, but, as the adult, you have to try to show how a mature person handles difficulties.

Its from a Dr Murray Strauss who did a forty year study. He found that children who were smacked show a three to five decrease in their IQ. Not much you say? How that an argument FOR spanking? My point always is, there are no positives for hitting kids. It causes only negatives. If something doesn't work, then its illogical to continue it as a practise. Thats what we do in a forward moving society - we abandon things that don't work. Hitting people is supposedly wrong in our society - kids in school get told off for hitting other kids, as adults we are not supposed to hit other people, we call it assault. If it happens between couples its called domestic violence. We say its wrong and make it illegal, and then do an about face and say 'you can't hit your kids, you can't beat them, but you can smack or spank them.' So now we have this situation where we have degree's of hitting. So that doesn't make sense to me.
And i know in my case it DID cause a sense of fear. I don't think kids should be afraid of their parents. I know my Dad thought fear and respect were the same thing, but as an adult i know that's not the case.

I didn't say it was an argument for spanking. I said it wasn't an argument at all.

Your other numbers are also correct, though I pointed out the 5-9 year old range that was tested. The tests administered to the 2-4 year old range were not IQ tests (you can contest the validity of this source, but it provides a link directly to Straus' journal), but modified versions of known tests redesigned by Straus himself, which he claims are "equivalent". He could have used tests that are known to work in that age range, but chose not to. Maybe his findings aren't bunk, but his lack of information -about- those tests makes them dubitable in my eyes.

Like I said, I don't have a stance on spanking, but I'm not opposed to dragging the debate back to square one for psychology's sake.

Hindering or in any way interfering with a childs ability to learn is a very good argument against spanking / hitting. I don't really have anything else to say on this subject.

What I have to ask those who support smacking is this: How will you frame this support in law without implying/allowing things you don't want to?

New Zealand previously had an amendment to our Crimes Act that allowed for "reasonable force" to be used against children. But what the hell does that mean? Apparently, if NZ juries are to be believed, it means you can tie up your disruptive son and you and your partner can beat him with a riding crop. Another jury didn't mind a kid being beat by a two-by-four.

Is there any law allowing smacking that doesn't err on the side of protecting abusive parents rather than erring on the side protecting children from abuse?

what? where? is there an article about it floating around?

I agree.

They have a button for that, you know.

Some of these tenagers today could probably benifit from a good spanking or two. Preferably in the auditorium, with the entire student body watching. Maybe being embarassed infront of their peers will wake them up to reality. But, I won't hold my breath on it.

Growing up, I actually never was spanked, though I can remember the threat itself. Apparently I was ridiculously obedient as a child. The worst single thing I can recall doing was apparently breaking a bowl, unintentionally, at a family friend's house while playing, and not realizing I had. I remember once I raised my voice at my mother when I believed she was mistaken, and was punished with a fairly mundane "write gibberish for several pages", probably when I was seven or so, which was pretty effective. I think I was less afraid of disappointing my parents, and more genuinely afraid of being yelled at, and that kept me in line.

Then again, I'm 24, and never went through a rebellious phase. Even my parents think I was as obedient as a sheepdog, and have no idea how they would have managed the children of their friends. They probably would have gone crazy.

I used to get spanked by my Mum and Dad when I was little, but now they know it only makes situations worse. Hehehehe.....

This is an interesting debate, but I think that it shouldn't be a problem to anyone else. If the parenting method involves physical punishment, then that's their problem. I know lots of people who were and weren't, there is no difference today, that I can see - and if you really care so much about a child's IQ from the get-go you don't understand parenting, IMHO. I wasn't lashed across the stomach with a belt, cut or sliced, or put on one of These Things! Warnings, time-outs, I had really great Parents who love me loads, and it's just how I could become the better mannered, polite guy I am now. The way I see it is Children don't understand the consequence of things until they are much older, in that transition, I *noticed* and /remember/ noticing that I wasn't told off in this way, which kinda made me feel more grown up, and therefore acting better. Maybe when I am a parent, I'll act differently, but because Humans are all unique, act in strange ways, and all get shaped in this course of life, the methods of bringing them up should be tailor-suited to them, too.

I suppose I shall share my two cents.

I was spanked as a child, but I'm not violent/criminal and I don't hate my parents. (Middle class white family in US). Then again, I don't think spanking really worked on me. I think I will just echo other people and say that it depends on the parents/children/offense. Of course I don't approve of beatings, I don't think anybody in this thread does.

But what I really wanted to express, I don't think that the government or school should enforce corporal punishment. I realize that in the case of private schools, they operate outside of the government, but I believe the choice to discipline a child physically is completely the parents' decision. Not the school's, not the government's, so I don't think that corporal punishment for children should be made illegal. It's simply not the government's or the school's job to step in and tell you how to raise your children. (Of course if they feel like the child's health is in danger, that's a completely different issue.) Sometimes spanking your child falls under your religious beliefs, which would be unconstitutional to outlaw.

Personally, I won't discipline my child in that manner, but there are always other creative ways of discipline.