Talk:Corporal punishment

Referencing

Just bunch of entries into the reference section in the article which may or may not have any great bearing on what's said within the article is not particularly useful. Use the established referencing conventions of the article. If the material is relevent, footnote it. If not, leave it out. 82.31.17.65 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

under "Related topics" in this template, I have placed this template on the page. While whether corporal punishment is itself abuse is disputed, whether it is considered to be related to the topic of abuse cannot be. The existence of such a debate warrants the placement of the template. Joie de Vivre 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This one has already been thrashed out in detail, if you read the older talk pages. The problem with sticking the abuse template on is that it gives disproportionate prominence to the concept of abuse in what has been for most of history and much of the world a normal way of disciplining children. 195.92.40.49 09:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think that a total of six comments by four people constitutes "great detail", and it certainly does not constitute consensus. The discussion remains open. I do not agree that inclusion of the template is inappropriate. Corporal punishment has been banned in seventeen countries, with two more countries currently hearing such legislation. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used".

Now, your argument was that corporal punishment is considered in some parts of the world to be "a normal way of disciplining children". But it's not as though we are adding this template to the Spanking article, which is the more typical word for using pain to discipline children. Corporal punishment is a much broader category includes whipping with leather, caning, and other severe methods of inflicting pain which, if inflicted on children, would be grounds for arrest in many developed countries. Shelving the term "corporal punishment" under the heading of "child discipline" deliberately ignores the broader scope of the term, which addresses severe physical pain inflicted on children or adults for punishment. The fact that entire countries have banned these practice signifies that many people consider these forms corporal punishment to be abusive. In the Abuse template, corporal punishment is not listed under "Forms of abuse". It's listed under "Related topics". The widely-held view that corporal punishment is related to abuse must not be censored. Joie de Vivre 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting the abuse template on is pretty clearly POV, as it necessarily implies that corporal punishment is related to abuse. This is not a neutral viewpoint. 82.18.202.240 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But it is objectively true that corporal punishment, as a topic, is related to abuse, as a topic -- simply because there is a notable number of people in the world who assert (however controversially) that corporal punishment sometimes or always constitutes abuse. Including {{abuse}} and calling the subjects related does not endorse either side of this debate; it merely acknowledges the debate's existence and provides a navigational aid that's relevant to it. Describing a debate this way isn't POV, it's textbook NPOV. A link to corporal punishment belongs in {{abuse}}, under the "Related topics" header, for the same reason. All further subtleties of the issue can be handled neutrally in the text of the appropriate articles, not in boxes or sidebars. –Sommers ^(Talk) 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's POV to remove the Abuse template from this page, because many people find the topic of corporal punishment to be related to the topic of abuse. Joie de Vivre 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Per my changes the last(?) time this was hashed out (and I believe a change that was stable for a significant period of time) I am going to move the template down within the article to balance the inclusion (definately relevant) vs prominance (not abuse, related) concerns. I look forward to further discussion but would request that all parties review all the Talk archives so as to see the history of this issue and preclude rearguing any covered points. Thanks, Acq3 05:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As I've said, the discussion to which Acq3 is referring is comprised of a total of six comments by four people. That short discussion did not resolve the dispute, nor was a consensus reached, so, in my view, the discussion should remain open. Also, it is my understanding that templates are navigational tools for reference between related articles, not article sections. I have never seen a template placed according to an article's section. The precedent I have observed at hundreds of other Wikipedia articles is to place template as close to the top of the article as possible. As it seems to be inappropriate to bury templates in the middle of articles, I have moved it back. Comments? Joie de Vivre 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Some templates, which are navigational tools, regularly go at the bottoms of articles. See the template at the bottom of the birth control articles, or the one at the bottom of the vitamin articles. Similarly, the "See Also" section is navigational and regularly goes at the bottom. --Coppertwig 23:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are wide horizontal templates. I can't find any instances of a tall, narrow, right-justified bookmark-style template being buried within an article. Joie de Vivre 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a first time for everything. Is there any reason not to have the template lower down, other than it not having been done quite like that before? --Coppertwig 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the reason we don't see that trend is because burying a navigational template within an article severely reduces its usefulness and ease of use. That is exactly why we should not do that here. Joie de Vivre 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the excuse that it has been used throughout history as a means of "discipline" -- hangings, electrocutions and stoning have been used throughout history and they are now banned in most countries/states of the world. Again, adding the abuse template does not categorise corporal punishment as abuse, just a related (and disputed) topic. --J. Atkins (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Source of Limitations

The "forty stripes" limitation is found in Jewish law (see Deuteronomy 25:3) not Roman law. Further, St. Paul states that he received "forty stripes save one" five times FROM THE JEWS, see 2 Cor. 11:24, which indicates that the limitation was a feature of Jewish law, not the Romans. The legal scourging that preceded crucifixion, moreover, was for the purpose of weaking the prisoner's will to resist and hastening his death, and thus probably had no particular ritual or number of lashes associated with it. John Paul Parks (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Torture, slavery and ... corporal punishment

The abuse template is slightly ridiculous. 195.92.40.49 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Corporal punishment does not only refer to Spanking. There is a separate Spanking article, which is not included in the Abuse template. Corporal punishment can refer to military beatings so severe as to cause death. Corporal punishment, a broader term than "spanking", must remain as part of the Abuse template. Joie de Vivre 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, if it's causing death it's not actually corporal punishment, but capital punishment. The definitions of corporal punishment (such as in law) specifically exclude abusive behaviour, much in the same way as tapping someone on the shoulder to draw their attention is distinguished from assault. The important difference is not just in the type of behaviour indulged in, but also in the end result of that behaviour. Thus, there's a distinct difference between applying a small amount of electricity to a person's body in electrolysis, in order to remove hair, and a large amount of electricity to a body in order to perform an execution. 62.25.106.209 09:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The injuries caused by a severe beating may lead to death. Corporal punishment does not magically tranform into capital punishment just because the person dies. The intention may not be to kill, but the acts may be so severe as to lead to death. Joie de Vivre 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, a United Nations (UNICEF) supported organisation, corporal punishment is a "fundamental breach of human rights" and forbidden by United Nations human rights law. See [1] and [2]. If one is to go by this, then it is effectively a "human rights abuse", but on the abuse template Corporal punishment is under "related topics" as is a matter of such debate concerning its use in the modern world. Therefore, it is not actually categorised on the abuse template as "abuse", merely a related topic which some consider abuse and vice versa. In my opinion, the abuse template should be kept on this page, especially when you consider that excessive corporal punishment is considered abuse in some jurisdictions. --J. Atkins (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Global Initiative says CP is forbidden by UN human rights law. But they would say that, because they are campaining against corporal punishment. They are obviously POV on the question of corporal punishment. Wikipedia has to be neutral about it. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Global Initiative cites to justify its claims, does not in fact mention the words "corporal punishment" anywhere. -- Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Other implements

My grandfather often used a length of rubber hose as a disciplinary tool. Is this practice common? Albino Bebop 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Abuse template

Corporal punishment does not only refer to spanking. It can refer to any form of inflicting pain to punish, including flogging, caning and other forms that go far beyond the bounds of spanking. Corporal punishment is a broad term and it is related to the topic of Abuse. Joie de Vivre 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is related to the topic of abuse, yes - but that doesn't mean that we can assert as fact that it is inherently a "form of abuse", when clearly that is a matter of opinion. The template should be rejigged to reflect this.

There are arguments both for and against corporal punishment in any given situation, but by having that template in its current form at the top of the article, we're sending out the message "Wikipedia thinks corporal punishment is always a bad thing". The article is supposed to be neutral, but the template completely kills that. 217.155.20.163 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The line has to be drawn somewhere as to what will be placed under "abuse" and what won't, and wherever the line is drawn, someone is going to be unhappy about it. When the U.N. says that something is abuse, that's as good a place to draw the line as we can have. Edwardsville 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The UN should draw the line on such matters? The purpose of the UN is to prevent war and promote peaceful pursuits in life, not tell families what traditions and culture they may or may not practice. It is interesting to note that all the green countries on the map are non-Western, and many were once part of the Axis Powers. There seems to be a cultural clash here between the East and West once again. Jcchat66 15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Corporal punishment on pets

What about corporal punishment on cats and dogs? Is there any mention of that in the article? If not, I think it should be mentioned. 4.235.120.12 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You could try Animal abuse, look for references and add the section yourself. Joie de Vivre 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think many people agree that use of so-called "corporal punishment" on domestic pets is Animal abuse / cruelty. --J. Atkins (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I love my dogs, but it had never occurred to me that people believed a smack with a newspaper if they didn't stop barking was wrong. There is no way that can be considered abuse, unless its considered mental abuse. The point of corporal punishment on a dog isn't to harm the animal, but to make it aware that you don't approve of what its doing. And as far as I know, all my dogs want is for me to approve of them, which I do. And I looove their floppy ears :D Oggleboppiter 05:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Counter-productive?

"Ironically, while the research shows that corporal punishment is counterproductive for all children, it is even more counterproductive for boys than girls". Although this is given a source, I don't think this is a neutral point of view. There is a HUGE range of research that has been done and is being done. I'm changing it to "...Reasearch suggests that corporal punishment is potentially counterproductive..." 144.139.143.35 13:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Sammy

---Further note------ Although the above change is a step in the right direction, this article reads in a very biased manner. If a person gets 'burned' by doing some action (especially a child) they are far less likely to do it in future. I would have thought it obvious for the article to say it was an effective means of changing someone's behaviour. There's only one side of the story being presented here - some would argue that smacking actually has a positive effect on a person's behaviour and respect for others - of course there is a wide spectrum here, I'm not arguing it would be good for everyone - but if viewpoints are being presented in this article, then both should be included.

Ultimâ 14:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If science says one thing, and tradition another, is it biased to only give weight to science? I think not. Besides, the article mentions that it does help with short-term compliance (while interfering with longterm compliance of course). /Gusten

Is it biased to only give weight to science? Of course it is! We are making new traditions based on science today, which may be overturned as tradition in the future, which often happens in history. Traditions don't come out of thin air, but often from what was considered factual at the time, or from experience, or from fear even. Science thought blood-letting was effective, too, and that the world was flat, or everything revolved around the earth. And centuries from now, what are future scientists going to say about what scientists thought today? So yes, it is VERY biased to consider only science, if for no other reason that the scientist may be proven wrong later, or they didn't have all the info they needed after all. The scientific method demands that we not be biased at all, for any reason. Obviously Gusten is not a scientist! Jcchat66 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Penal principles

"The problem with the use of corporal punishment is that, if punishments are to maintain their efficacy, the amount of force required may have to be increased over successive punishments."

Um, punishing by increasing the intensity of an aversive stimulus over time does not work. Experimental work has demonstrated that. If you want punishment to work, then it needs to be severe for the first offense, and needs to remain constant (or, it can be allowed to /decrease/ over time).

The six penal principles are as such. To be effective,

1. Punishment must be swift.
2. Punishment must be certain.
3. Punishment must be severe for the first offense.
4. Punishment must not increase with consecutive uses, but should remain steady or decrease.
5. Punishment will not work if the punished behavior is made less desireable.
6. Punishment will not work if the punished behavior is the only route to a subject's desires.

Let's compare two examples where punishment is effective and where it isn't. Punishment is effective for putting your finger on a hot stove. It is swift: pain rises to an intolerable level within a fraction of a second. It is sure: you cannot escape being burned if you touch a hot stove. It is severe for the first offense: burns make the /worst/ kind of pain. The punishment remains consistent: every time you touch the hot stovetop, you get burned, and the pain is no less painful. The punished behavior is not particularly desireable: there's not much you could gain from touching a hot stove. And there are alternatives to touching a hot stove: you can touch anything else in your kitchen, or rest your hand anywhere on the counter.

Punishment is not effective for knocking over convenience stores. Punishment is not swift: it takes time for the state to find the perp, arrest him, try him, sentence him, and carry out the sentence. Punishment is not sure: the perp may get away clean, leaving no useful evidence behind. Punishment is not severe for the first offense: the perp might be sentenced to a couple of months in light-security prison, or even just get a sentence of community service or something. Punishment does not remain consistent: if you hold up another store, you get a harsher sentence to which you are somewhat inured by your first sentencing. The punished behavior has a significant payoff: a thief might make off with only a hundred dollars, but he would have had a good time while doing it. And the punished behavior is the easiest route for the perp to get his cash and his thrills, because who's going to hire a robber?

-- Dreamer (rutgers.edu)

And this serves what purpose? Who whote the six penal principles? Another idealist? Jcchat66 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ritual and punishment

Regretfully tagged this section. I think the author has a valid insight - but references are needed to show that it isn't just a perceptive piece of Original Research. The list of weapons used in various countries needs references to show that these are more than anecdotal or individual cases. DavidCooke 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good discipline resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/27.htm

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The discipline page of this site includes articles containing extensive research and worthwhile advice on various forms of child discipline within the family and the classroom. Useful articles suggest ways to discipline a child, including forms of child discipline and safe measures for parents to take to control their children. Teamme 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Maybe so, but this isn't a Wikipedia article about worthwhile advice on how to discipline a child. It is a Wikipedia article about corporal punishment. The article should confine itself to explaining, without opinions or value-judgements one way or the other, what corporal punishment was and/or is and how it was and is used. Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is scientific

In footnote 25 it says It should be noted that neither the pro-spanking or anti-spanking studies are truly scientific - they cannot be modeled or reproduced by other researchers, and the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs. This strikes me as nonsense. If a study published in a journal as important as Pediatrics isn't truly scientific then what is? It seems that whoever wrote that has an understanding of science so limited that it would rule out as non-scientific anything that didn't meet the standards of physics or chemistry. Besides, there's no evidence that the studies are biased, and very strong evidence would be needed to support that claim considering the papers were published in well respected peer-reviewed journals.190.44.37.148 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

One could indeed argue that "research" in matters of this kind is not susceptible of the kind of empirical proof which is possible in physics or chemistry experiments, since you can never isolate all the possible factors, and that therefore it can never be "scientific" in the sense that physics and chemistry are. At best, you might tentatively be able to show that there is a degree of statistical correlation, but you cannot prove a causal connection. Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Is not this "Global progress towards achieving full prohibition of all corporal punishment of children is accelerating worldwide." NPOV70.150.94.194 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've tried to make it more neutral. Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

US Map

I don't have a PNG editor, or I would make this map; it shows US States where Corporal punishment is allowed, not allowed, and sort of allowed. --72.213.17.222 (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead section?

I'm not sure we should have the "Global Initiative To Abolish All Corporal Punishment of Children" mentioned like it is in the lead section. It seems to make the whole lead section imply that corporal punishment for children is a bad thing. Maybe it should be rewritten so it just tells about the issue; I think some people could see this as taking a political stance. Just a thought. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Without question, this entire article is the most biased I have ever seen. There is no mention of opposing theory, even historic. Nearly every lead sentence is presented as logical fallacy. The article should be titled "Banishment of Corporal Punishment". To state that, "147 countries do not prohibit," is just silly. The second para is "Canada:". Look at the last sentence. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a second-year mid-term ChildDev paper. 166.128.134.126 (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Corporal punishment giving sexual discrimination the force of law in Queensland?

I would just like to challenge the claim supported by reference [23] regarding sexual discrimination being given the force of law in Queensland schools. The article claims that it has been illegal to impose physical punishment in schools on girls since 1934 but is still permissible against boys. This is not completely correct. Queensland has, over the years, implemented regulations to slowly phase out corporal punishment in schools by gradually limiting what is and is not acceptable. Initially it was banned against girls over a certain age, then against all children under a certain age. In 1992 it was banned completely (against both boys and girls) in Queensland state schools. I would point out that the website referenced at [23] reflects this contention.

However, this “ban” is not law, it is merely executive policy administered by the Queensland Department of Education. Section 280 of the Criminal Code (Qld) provides that it is a defence to assault for a teacher (and parent, and person loco parentis) if the force was reasonable under the circumstances for the purpose of correcting the child’s behaviour. Thus, corporal punishment in Queensland state schools is not “illegal”, either, as section 280 provides teachers with a defence.

So neither is there, since 1992, effective sexual discrimination when it comes to the legality of corporal punishment, and nor is the practice actually illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantStudier (talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to tell a point about the map on corporal punishment in Europe: while spanish law effectively banned it at home recently, catalan civil right, which has the preeminency according to spanish laws, indeed allows parents to punish their children. Therefore, someone should change the coloring of the map. --217.125.97.102 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)