No Spanking Laws

[El]

I would never condone kids being taken away from their family because they spanked them.  That would harm a lot of children.  That would be silly and achieve nothing.   

Then what would be the legal consequences for spanking? Small fine similar to a parking ticket? How many tickets is too many?

The goal of such a law is to prevent it from happening rather than introducing petty fines with the expectation that the law will be ignored.

It seems that the countries who have already taken steps to ban all forms of corporal punishment have had desirable effects.  The focus being on education more than prosecution.

This article is a little dated, (2002) but does give an idea of how the policy has been working in places like Sweden.
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/
 

Laws against physically punishing children have been used to educate parents rather than prosecute them. Jackie Cosh reports

Aban on smacking children was implemented in Sweden in 1979. Since then only four children have been killed after being assaulted by an adult, and only one of these was at the hands of a parent - one child in 23 years, compared with Britain's one child a week.

I'd like to know Sweden's baseline, though.  It's a powerful statistic, but it's backed up by comparing apples and oranges.

Bodie, did you ever address this?  I scanned for you replying to me but didn't find it.  I would legitly like to know.

Sorry,  missed this.

The biggest study carried out (that i can find)  is found here http://snifferdogonline.com/reports/Corporal%20Punishment/Evaluating%20the%20Success%20of%20Sweden%27s%20Corporal%20Punishment%20Ban.pdf

Relevant part: 

Between 1971 and 1975, five children died in Sweden as a result of physical abuse during
incidents in which the caretaker’s motive was “a disciplinary measure to eliminate a disturbing
behaviour of a child without the intention to kill” (Somander & Rammer, 1991, p. 53).

 However, during the ensuing 15 years (1976 to 1990), no children died in Sweden as a result of abuse (SCB,
1978a, 1979a, 1980a, 1981a, 1982a, 1983a, 1984a, 1985a, 1986a, 1987a, 1988a, 1990a, 1991a,
1992a, 1992b).

Between 1990 and 1996, four children died from the effects of physical abuse; only
one of these children was killed by a parent (SCB, 1992a, 1993a, 1994a, 1994b, 1996a, 1997a,
1998) and this rate does not represent a significant increase since 1971[...].

Sweden's baseline was already significantly, significantly lower than "Britain's one child a week."

The conclusion I draw here is genuinely that there's something else going on.  The ban on corporal punishment may have had benefits, but as far as child deaths went, Sweden was already doing something different than other countries, either in reporting, or in genuine prevention.

[odeon]

While still not amounting to anywhere near "one child a week", it should be pointed out that Sweden's population then was (and still is, as far as I know) about 1/8 of the UK's.

I'd like to know more about Britain's numbers.

[bodie]

These figures are from NSPCC website

Ofsted's Annual report 2007/08 (Ofsted, 2008) presented the findings from the first full year of inspection and regulation by Ofsted across its expanded remit that came into being in April 2007, which includes evidence of progress made in safeguarding children.

According to this report, in the 17-month period to the end of August 2008 local authorities in England notified Ofsted of 424 serious incidents involving the deaths of 282 children.  This equates to 199 annually, or almost four children each week.

Since publication of this report, Ofsted has clarified that 210 of these deaths, i.e. three each week, were actually attributable to abuse or neglect (Gilbert, 2008).  This is still higher than the NSPCC’s estimate of at least one child a week, but it must be borne in mind that the figures stem from very different, albeit complementary, sources of data and are in fact not contradictory.

The NSPCC has traditionally focused on the ONS (previously Home Office) homicide data, which records those cases where there is sufficient evidence that homicide may have taken place. This data has been collected relatively consistently for 30 years by the police and therefore provides a useful long term measure of change. However, it is the NSPCC’s long-held view that these official figures are actually an underestimate.

The Ofsted data include deaths in which abuse or neglect is known or suspected to have played a part in the widest sense: it includes cases with a history of domestic violence between the adults, where substance misuse was evident at time of death, or where investigations were inconclusive but abuse or neglect are suspected.

These deaths, however, are not accounted for in the homicide data. The NSPCC welcomes this important addition to the data pool and see it as a valuable enhancement to what we know about children’s tragic experiences.

There are many reports about child death from abuse in the UK.  They seem to range from 1-4 deaths per week. 

I couldn't open the PDF files from the Gov.uk website

[Al Swearegen]

I think this is the crux of things.

So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?

Is it a reasonable question?

I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.

Why is this superficial? Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?

I mean, what would it take? When would it stop being a government meddling with its citizens' private lives? A case by case basis would not work. Lots of kids would fall through the cracks and nothing would change.

Because it is lazy and idealistic. It will target good parenting and bad parenting and redefine good parents as bad.
I see this almost as ridiculous a solution as the more evolved version.
Wow if you call spanking hitting, abusive and beating and apply that to all these parents so that you can write up good stats, then imagine if you outlawed alll forms of parenting. The kids complaining that their parents were never abusive but were cold or would take things off them or whatever will no longer be dysfunctional members of society.
Let's call "parents to be" "potential parents of at risk children"
There will be children saved from bad parenting.
I am sorry but majority rebuttals or going too retorts far won't work here. I think it is ridiculous in exactly the same ways

[TheoK]

It's actually pretty easy for the authorities here to take children from their parents on very vague grounds - though I think that was the case long before the laws against spanking existed.

[RageBeoulve]

Again. Common sense being legislated is ridiculous. People need to shut their fucking overactive mouths and work on things that actually matter. Sure people beat their kids. Its a law going to stop it? No. Is a severe beating, people noticing and calling the police and getting them in prison and having the kids moved to a more wholesome location, SHOOTING the fuckers, generally removing this filthy and evil aspect of society going to do anything?

In a word, YES. This is fucking common sense, guys. A law won't solve it, but less laziness, and more awareness for your fellow man. Get your fucking asses in gear instead of trying to tell people what to do. They won't obey you. Trust me.

[Bastet]

I think kids need a little spanking every now and then.

With your saggy balls?

[odeon]

I think this is the crux of things.

So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?

Is it a reasonable question?

I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.

Why is this superficial? Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?

I mean, what would it take? When would it stop being a government meddling with its citizens' private lives? A case by case basis would not work. Lots of kids would fall through the cracks and nothing would change.

Because it is lazy and idealistic. It will target good parenting and bad parenting and redefine good parents as bad.
I see this almost as ridiculous a solution as the more evolved version.
Wow if you call spanking hitting, abusive and beating and apply that to all these parents so that you can write up good stats, then imagine if you outlawed alll forms of parenting. The kids complaining that their parents were never abusive but were cold or would take things off them or whatever will no longer be dysfunctional members of society.
Let's call "parents to be" "potential parents of at risk children"
There will be children saved from bad parenting.
I am sorry but majority rebuttals or going too retorts far won't work here. I think it is ridiculous in exactly the same ways

But going overboard with it, there would be children falling through the cracks again, for other reasons, which you know and which I know. I'm not discussing outlawing all forms of parenting and you know fully well I'm not. I presented a hypothetical and would appreciate an answer.

With all else being equal, if I could show that yes, there is a method of parenting that works without any form of smacking, and yes, there is reasonable cause for believing the stats as presented by the Swedish authorities, why not?

[odeon]

It's actually pretty easy for the authorities here to take children from their parents on very vague grounds - though I think that was the case long before the laws against spanking existed.

Oh yes. It was easier back then, actually. Sweden's always been something of a nanny state.

[odeon]

Again. Common sense being legislated is ridiculous. People need to shut their fucking overactive mouths and work on things that actually matter. Sure people beat their kids. Its a law going to stop it? No. Is a severe beating, people noticing and calling the police and getting them in prison and having the kids moved to a more wholesome location, SHOOTING the fuckers, generally removing this filthy and evil aspect of society going to do anything?

In a word, YES. This is fucking common sense, guys. A law won't solve it, but less laziness, and more awareness for your fellow man. Get your fucking asses in gear instead of trying to tell people what to do. They won't obey you. Trust me.

It is common sense not to kill people whenever you feel they are being morons, yet there is legislation in place in most countries to punish you for it, should you decide to do it anyway. Why do you suppose that is?

[TheoK]

It is common sense not to kill people whenever you feel they are being morons, yet there is legislation in place in most countries to punish you for it, should you decide to do it anyway. Why do you suppose that is?

Cynically speaking: because the state must show its authority. It says that it's because it cares about the citizens, but that's not true if you look at it historically. Originally the punishment for killing someone was only a fine. It was when the state grew stronger and got its monopoly on violence that blood feud etc. became illegal and the punishments became severe.

What sparked the Germanic uprising against the Romans in 9 A.D. was mainly that the Romans executed a free man. This was totally against Germanic customs and morals 2000 years ago. A free man back then only paid a fine for committing any crime, including murder. If he was to be punished in any other way was up to the relatives of the victim. A few nations still have this custom, even if the written law says something else.

Oh, I forgot: the Romans also forbade the Germans to carry weapons in public. This was also unthinkable for a free man back then 

[TheoK]

In Sweden it's very obvious that the state's monopoly on violence is much more important than the right of the citizens to protect life and property. Although most European countries have very severe gunlaws, Sweden is one of the few that doesn't allow the citizens to carry anything that realistically can be used in self-defense. Even Russia allows its citizens to carry a baton or a can of teargas for protecting themselves. Germany allows tasers and teargas guns. Sweden doesn't allow anything 

[bodie]

Again. Common sense being legislated is ridiculous. People need to shut their fucking overactive mouths and work on things that actually matter. Sure people beat their kids. Its a law going to stop it? No. Is a severe beating, people noticing and calling the police and getting them in prison and having the kids moved to a more wholesome location, SHOOTING the fuckers, generally removing this filthy and evil aspect of society going to do anything?

In a word, YES. This is fucking common sense, guys. A law won't solve it, but less laziness, and more awareness for your fellow man. Get your fucking asses in gear instead of trying to tell people what to do. They won't obey you. Trust me.

The goals of the Swedish Government have been met.  It does work.  It has worked without the need to prosecute parents.  There has been no sharp increase in kids being taken away.  It has been 30 years, and i'm sure any ill effects would have become apparent by now.

[TheoK]

It would be better to solve things without laws, though, and, as I have stated so many times before: although Sweden is a welfare society with relatively little violence, the authorities don't really care about the individual.

[El]

It would be better to solve things without laws, though, and, as I have stated so many times before: although Sweden is a welfare society with relatively little violence, the authorities don't really care about the individual.

I don't think it matters if they "care."  It matters how they treat the individual/how they effect the individual.