Want a hot ethical topic to discuss? A Democratic assemblywoman from Mountain View, California, intends to introduce a bill that makes it a misdemeanor to spank a child three years old and under. Penalties could include child-rearing classes for offenders to one year in jail. This bill has already drawn national attention.
Good idea? Don't be bashful. I know you have an opinion on this one.
Update: Jennifer Roback Morse has a column on the spanking issue. She writes,
“Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30 years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it's used sparingly and doesn't escalate to abuse. “If it's used in a limited way,'' the Oklahoma State University professor said, “it can be more effective than almost any other type of punishment.'' He added that children 18 months old or younger shouldn't be spanked at all, because they can't understand why it's happening. As for Lieber's proposal, the professor said: ``I think this proposal is not just a step too far, it's a leap too far. At least from a scientific perspective there really isn't any research to support the idea that this would make things better for children.''
Morse makes the case that not spanking can do greater harm than two swats on a covered bottom.
Yup, I got an opinion, and a conviction. (Thankfully, the two agree!)
Let me throw a qualifier in here before I say anything: I do not consider a slap on the wrist of a child who is reaching for the stove (or anything similar to that) to fall under the umbrella of "spanking."
Now...
There are two conclusions that I don't believe I will ever come to:
1.) The Bible teaches NOT to use spanking as an effective method of discipline.
2.) Child abuse is good.
There are only two reasons, in my opinion, that spanking is warrented. The first is if the child is defiantly disobeying.
"Go to your bed, young man!"
"NO!!! I won't!!!"
My children know that this answer is unacceptable. (That doesn't stop them from using it on occasion!!)
The second is if a child intentionally hurts someone else. If my boy hits my girl he knows that warrents a spanking.
I heard someone ask one time, "Surely you don't believe that you should spank a 6 month old, do you"?
My answer is that I don't believe a parent should spank ANY child if that parent is not sure that the child understood that he or she was disobeying. And I would question if a 6 month old understands what he is doing.
However, if a child of any age spills his milk, that does not warrent a spanking. But if you tell the child not to spill his milk, and he promptly grabs the cup, stretches his arm out over the floor, and overturns the cup, spilling its contents onto the floor...ok, that child is testing you. In such case, I believe that a spanking is just fine.
I have no idea whether this bill will pass or not. But even if it does, it will not change how I discipline my children. I think enough people are seeing the weakneses of the past few decades of wimpy discipline. It produced too many wimpy kids who get away with way too much.
But that is just my opinion...
Posted by: Danny Kaye | January 22, 2007 at 09:46
I don't spank my children. There are other effective means of behavior modification for the resourceful parent. That said, I think this bill might be a bit intrusive into the family dynamic. I don't want abuse, but I don't want to impose my notion of childrearing on society as a whole. I'm also reluctant to give the government too much power with regard to family/parenting choices. My parents spanked all their children, and they were not abusive. None of us claim harm as a result, and our family remains close and loving.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 22, 2007 at 11:46
I guess I can see where this is coming from, but I don't see anything wrong with spanking. If it is used as a threat, or is done too hard, spanking could be harmful. Still, when I was young, my mom would spank me if I deserved it, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Sometimes spanking is the only way to get children to behave. However, that doesn't mean that parents should only spank, and not say "no" or take away privileges first. It should be used more as a last resort, in my opinion.
This reminds me of something I heard in a Sunday School class - in one European country, it is illegal to tell your child what to do. That could be the beginning of disaster...
Even if the spanking bill did pass, which I doubt, I don't think it would be enforced that much.
Posted by: Rachael | January 22, 2007 at 13:19
The role of the government is to preserve order and promote justice. The government ought to pass laws which do that: laws which encourage good behavior and punish bad behavior.
If that sounds like legislating morality, then you would be right. That's what laws do. It is wrong to steal. So we make a law that punishes thieves. We just legislated our morality.
Spanking, done with proper restraint and with reconciliation and restoration at the end, is quite helpful in the training of young hearts and wills. Beating up a child is never right ... under any circumstances.
The problem with this law ... and what would make it a bad law ... is that it redefines spanking as assaulting (beating up). It assumes that parents who spank are angry people assaulting innocent victims ... just like muggers do. That is false. This law would therefore punish people who are (in many cases) actually doing a good thing: they are training their children to govern themselves.
Posted by: Mr. D | January 23, 2007 at 06:17
It may surprise you to learn that I'm okay with limited spanking, within reason. Where you draw the line between routine slap-on-the-wrist type spanking and abusive spanking is murky, and that's all the more reason for the government not to try to so define it. As Danny Kaye says, the important things are that spanking is not done too hard, or too often, and that it's done in a way that corrects behavior rather than in anger. I don't go so far as to say that the child has to understand that the spanking is a punishment for a bad action taken; it's more primal than that: "what I just did caused something bad to happen to me." There's a point in early development where that's all a child will understand.
If I had kids, such means would be used sparingly, but I suspect they would be used. My brother and his wife use "time out" instead, with mixed results. But my wife has studied childhood development some, and she tells me that studies indicate that no single method of punishment is particularly effective, at least not by itself.
I jokingly tell my brother that when we were growing up, the only "time out" we ever got was an injury time out. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | January 23, 2007 at 16:01
WAY WAY WAY to inrusive on my personal discipline...that in not the role of good government. Now, the caveat.
What is spanking the child? It really comes down to motives. If I am a hot head and I know the littlest things will push me over the edge, but if my child is pushing the limit over and over again, physical reinforcement should be used.
My son (age 5) hardly ever needs spanked. We use positive reinforcement (stickers are great at this age) including trips with Dad to McDonalds each time he earns so many stickers. Believe me, he loves those times. I believe the bible would have us physically discipline our children, but only as the last line of defense, not the first.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | January 23, 2007 at 16:44
No! The law should not be dictating to parents how to discipline their children. Whoever said it above was right. The author of this law is guilty equivocation. Spanking is not assault. They are two very different things.
Someone on LaShawn's website, I believe, pointed out the irony of a society that wants to say no to spanking a child under the age of 3, and yet deems it legal to tear a child limb from limb inside its mothers womb. Or worse.
The gov't. seriously needs to get out of nanny mode. Seriously.
Posted by: Susannah | January 24, 2007 at 00:26
First let me say that I agree with the some of the issues raised above if this law were to go into effect. Namely, how do we enforce it and where is the line between "slap on the wrist" and spanking to be drawn? However, let me make a few observations :
- We already have laws which impact how we can discipline our children. We cannot just do anything we want. So the issue is not just that the government should not be telling us how to parent. The government already intrudes on that issue - the question is where should the limits on intrusion be set.
- I wonder if this would be an issue for Christians if we did not already assume that the Bible condones(or even demands) spanking.
- Just wondering, but how does the government draw the line between now between spanking and beating/abuse? Seems like the issues would be similar.
Thanks for bringing up the hot topics Jeff!
Posted by: Brian | January 24, 2007 at 11:41
"The law should not be dictating to parents how to discipline their children. "
It absolutely should. Spend even five minutes with an abused child and you will know why. And spare me the "abuse is not spanking!" line: the abusers I have known invariable fall back on some form of "its discipline!" to defend their loathsome selves. The nanny mode that hold in such contempt of has saved countless kids from horrific homes.
Having gotten that out of the way: not all spanking is abuse and I don't see any evidence that the current law doesn't go far enough in defining abuse, so this law seems unnecessary.
Posted by: kevin | January 24, 2007 at 12:30
I personally do not think it is wise to argue this as a case of the government being too intrusive. The governent should protect its citizens. Again, the issues should be order and justice -- if it makes sense, make a law. Using privacy as your moral principle to criticize this law is too close to the same type of argument used by the pro-abortion lobby. Like Brian said, we already have laws which punish parents for abusing their children. We have already crossed that line.
Enforce-ability is not a strong moral reason either. I have to agree, though, it would be a difficult law to enforce.
The reason it would be a bad law is because spanking <> assaulting.
If a child has been assaulted by their parent, then the parent should be punished under existing laws. Spanking, as Jennifer Roback Morse argues (see update to my post), can be beneficial according to experts. Assaulting is never beneficial under any circumstances.
Clearly assaulting <> spanking ... that is what makes this proposed bill absurd.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 24, 2007 at 18:45
"Like Brian said, we already have laws which punish parents for abusing their children. We have already crossed that line."
I don't think laws pertaining to abuse have crossed a line. ??? I guess I don't understand what you are saying.
It's not privacy, but conscience that I see being violated here.
Spanking isn't a crime. Abuse *is* a crime. No one has a right to commit a crime in the privacy of his own home, so the state's not out of line in prosecuting abuse.
This law seeks to *criminalize spanking.* It mischaracterizes spanking by terming it "beating," etc. I view it as a dishonest attempt to exert state control over something that is essentially a family matter. It would be similar to the state telling me I cannot homeschool my children because the state construes that as "educational neglect" simply because I'm not certified to teach. It's a false use of the term "neglect."
I mean, whose kids *are* they? The state's or the parents'? (I would say they are ultimately God's, but you know what I mean.)
This is another example of the nanny state run amok, IMO.
Posted by: Susannah | January 24, 2007 at 23:21
P.S.
Think of it this way:
Under this law, Pa and Ma Ingalls of "Little House" fame would be criminals.
I'm reading Ralph Moody's *Little Britches* right now. Apparently his parents would be criminals too.
Heck, my own parents were criminal!
Give me a break.
Posted by: Susannah | January 24, 2007 at 23:26
"I don't think laws pertaining to abuse have crossed a line. ??? I guess I don't understand what you are saying."
Mea culpa. Bad wording on my part. What I mean is that we already criminalize abuse on the part of parents. If someone's position is that the government is not allowed to criminalize anything a parent does because it is none of the government's #$%#@$^#^ business ... then I would ask, do you think it is right for the government to prosecute parents who starve or physically abuse their children?
My position is that we *should* criminalize abuse. Parents who starve their children, or lock them in a closet for days on end, or burn them with cigarettes, ought to be prosecuted ... even though they are parents. I don't view that as the government meddling.
"This law seeks to *criminalize spanking.* It mischaracterizes spanking by terming it "beating," etc. "
Exactly which is why this proposed law is absurd>
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 25, 2007 at 08:08
I'll agree that trying to outlaw spanking by equivocating it with abuse is not a good tactic. It misrepresents what most people consider spanking and minimizes what real abuse is.
However, I read back over that article Jeff linked to and didn't see the spanking=abuse wording anywhere. Maybe I missed it or she has said it somewhere else. I did see her say that opposition to this bill is analogous to opposing domestic violence against women - which I think is a false analogy.
I'll be interested in see the wording of the actual bill when it gets introduced.
Just curious... I was spanked as a child - frequently with a switch which I had to get myself. It wasn't unusual for me to have welts on my legs and for the skin to broken in places. Would y'all consider that abuse? If yes, what would have made it not abuse? If no, what would have pushed it over the edge?
(Jeff, I'm not trying to start a big controversy here on your blog so if want to edit that last paragraph out feel free)
Posted by: Brian | January 25, 2007 at 10:30
Brian,
I think the discussion on the absurdity of the law has run its course.
So ... to your question.
Welts? Broken skin? That is excessive and completely unnecessary.
Two-swats on a child's covered bottom is what we are talking about.
Switches ... flogging ... cat-of-9-tails ... broken skin ... we have moved out of the realm of spanking and into the realm of Roman style punishment.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 26, 2007 at 06:05