Should children recieve more discipline?

I think that this is a reasonable discussion so do you think that children should be punished more? In my opinion yes they should be punished more, most children commit crimes & recieve a warning, where as if an adult commits a crime they have to make up the time in prison or whatever. Most people will say that the child didn't know what they were doing, whereas I think that it is a pathetic excuse as children are responsible for their actions. That just encourages the child to do whatever the heck they want without being punished & it's redicolus. It explains why most children behave more completly out of hand nowadays, in school, outside of school, anywhere basically. Do you think that there is enough discipline for children or not & why?

« Last edited by know-your-role on Jun 7th 2010 »

Today its not a problem of discipline it is a problem of over protection.

Kids are way over sheltered these days, and because of that they are growing up not knowing enough about the rights and wrongs of the world.

AS for discipline, kids are not nearly disciplined enough. Timeouts, and sending them to their room doesn't work. Beating their asses needs to be re-instated, both in all households and the teachers given back the paddle, to whoop these little bastards into shape.

Brandon 2006 said:

Today its not a problem of discipline it is a problem of over protection.

Kids are way over sheltered these days, and because of that they are growing up not knowing enough about the rights and wrongs of the world.

AS for discipline, kids are not nearly disciplined enough. Timeouts, and sending them to their room doesn't work. Beating their asses needs to be re-instated, both in all households and the teachers given back the paddle, to whoop these little bastards into shape.

I like your backwards thinking.

"Lets blame young children (8 & under are children - 9-14 preteens (aparently) lol) for them acting out by hitting them!"

Yeah... that sounds like a reasonable step to take /sarcasm

It all falls down to the parents.

If parents step up to the plate instead of being lazy & inconsistent, then there will be significantly less problems with children.

Timeouts, and sending them to their room doesn't work.

I'd like to see you cite credible scientific studies to back your point before you go & make a personal opinion & diguise it as fact.

I can say from my own personal experience that time outs & other such punishments such as clearing out a childs room of everything other than a chest of drawers & bed, then allowing the child to choose a toy for good behaivour to go into their room again works.

A reward/consequence system such as that. Taking toys away when naughty, allowing toys back when their good reinforces a strong sense of correct behaivour. My neice & two nephews, all under the age of 5 are good cases for that. Combine that with 'time outs' & the parents being consistent works wonders.

The OP was a little unclear. As I've stated, these days ages are broken into different 'categories'. With 'children' being generally considered under 8 - preteens 9-14, teens 14/15 to (depending on where you live 18 or 21) and adults older than that.

So younger children generally don't need more discipline than consistent rules & punishments/rewards from their parents.

Elder children DO need more stricter punishments, but I would never lay a hand on a children in violence.

Why should adults be allowed to use physical punishments on helpless, defenceless children, when its punishable by law to use physical violence against another adults.

Sure, self-defence is the exception in that case.

I couldn't place my finger on it yet, my daughter is only shy of 2 months so I'll have to get back with you on this topic.

sphynxx said:

Timeouts, and sending them to their room doesn't work.

I'd like to see you cite credible scientific studies to back your point before you go & make a personal opinion & diguise it as fact.

Yeah, sounds like a good point, I agree, always back up your opinion with fact!

If parents step up to the plate instead of being lazy & inconsistent, then there will be significantly less problems with children.

uh... Well it seems that you do not quite have a study to back up this statement, not to pick on minute details, but that seems quite hypocritical.

I can say from my own personal experience that time outs & other such punishments such as clearing out a childs room of everything other than a chest of drawers & bed, then allowing the child to choose a toy for good behaivour to go into their room again works.

A reward/consequence system such as that. Taking toys away when naughty, allowing toys back when their good reinforces a strong sense of correct behaivour. My neice & two nephews, all under the age of 5 are good cases for that. Combine that with 'time outs' & the parents being consistent works wonders.

Yes, we should not use "violence" on children, but should sure be able to steal their possessions as a consequence. I believe that "clearing out a room" would be considered stealing if it was an adult. The "toys" in question are not the parents are they? If my parents came into my room and took my psp, I would be very upset, because I purchased it with my own money. Likewise I would say that using this method should probably be compared to your point about "violence".

So younger children generally don't need more discipline than consistent rules & punishments/rewards from their parents.

Elder children DO need more stricter punishments, but I would never lay a hand on a children in violence.

Please explain your reasoning, I am not quite sure where the elusive study that proves this went....

Why should adults be allowed to use physical punishments on helpless, defenceless children, when its punishable by law to use physical violence against another adults.

Why should they be able to "steal" their children's possessions?


« Last edited by Patriot X on Jun 11th 2010 »

So, Patriot, how do you suggest children are disciplined then, if you're going to assume that their parents have no more rights over them than one adult would have over another? They can't send them to their rooms as it'd be unlawful imprisonment, they can't hit them, they can't take their possessions away... they can tell them off and that's about it, it would seem.

No, I was merely using Alfred's logic against him. I believe that parents do have the right to use physical punishment as long as it does not cross the line into abuse. The line there is somewhat fine, but I believe that as long as the parent is not punishing the child in anger, that it is fine.
Now I do have a problem with taking away their possessions, as in the case that I mentioned, I purchased my psp with my own money that I earned, therefore it would be wrong for them to take it away from me.

So parents have the right to use a form of violence as punishment but not to confiscate possessions? Your justification for this is rather weak. If I were to hit a random person in the street, particularly one weaker or smaller than me, then I would likely be speaking to the police about it before long. Therefore by claiming parents have the right to hit their children you claim that parents have rights over their children that ordinarily people don't have over each other. So why should parents not be able to confiscate their children's possessions if they're found to be misbehaving? Yes, normally I would not be allowed to take someone else's possessions that they paid for, but neither do I normally have the right to hit other people if they disobey an instruction that I give them.

Besides, it's not like parents steal from their children for their own benefit and never return the items - they take them away for a short period of time for disciplinary purposes and probably never touch them themselves while their child's not allowed to use them. So equating confiscation to theft is a rather silly argument...

My parents have never laid a hand on me, timeouts, lectures and other punishments like that were their form of parenting. I grew up in Oakland California, I`m an honor roll student, I haven't been punished in about 4 years because of my failure to do anything serious enough for punishment. I am very well behaved around all of my elders, but naturally I have an attitude towards anything I find pointless or stupid (certain unnamed things my parents and others do) but I am a good kid. I`m not violent and I normally don't defy my parents unless I have a good reason. I`d say it worked for them and they would say that it worked for them too.

So it all depends how the parents handle their kids when they`re toddlers, allowing them to do anything will eventually cause their children to be unruly. (or at least from my parents personal experience)

Catharsis said:

So parents have the right to use a form of violence as punishment but not to confiscate possessions? Your justification for this is rather weak. If I were to hit a random person in the street, particularly one weaker or smaller than me, then I would likely be speaking to the police about it before long. Therefore by claiming parents have the right to hit their children you claim that parents have rights over their children that ordinarily people don't have over each other. So why should parents not be able to confiscate their children's possessions if they're found to be misbehaving? Yes, normally I would not be allowed to take someone else's possessions that they paid for, but neither do I normally have the right to hit other people if they disobey an instruction that I give them.

Hmm... I see your point. Now that I really think of it I suppose you are correct. Neither form of punishment is really right to use. I would say that they violate the childs rights.

Besides, it's not like parents steal from their children for their own benefit and never return the items - they take them away for a short period of time for disciplinary purposes and probably never touch them themselves while their child's not allowed to use them. So equating confiscation to theft is a rather silly argument...

Regardless of intent and time, I still think that the repossessing of someone else's possessions is wrong. Laying hands on someone's property without their consent should not be permitted.

The problem with all of this is what to do about it. Even though I believe that these forms of punishment are wrong, there is really nothing I can do about it. We can talk all day about this, but when it comes down to it, parents are probably just going to keep applying the same techiniques as they're parents.

Patriot X said:

Catharsis said:

So parents have the right to use a form of violence as punishment but not to confiscate possessions? Your justification for this is rather weak. If I were to hit a random person in the street, particularly one weaker or smaller than me, then I would likely be speaking to the police about it before long. Therefore by claiming parents have the right to hit their children you claim that parents have rights over their children that ordinarily people don't have over each other. So why should parents not be able to confiscate their children's possessions if they're found to be misbehaving? Yes, normally I would not be allowed to take someone else's possessions that they paid for, but neither do I normally have the right to hit other people if they disobey an instruction that I give them.

Hmm... I see your point. Now that I really think of it I suppose you are correct. Neither form of punishment is really right to use. I would say that they violate the childs rights.

Besides, it's not like parents steal from their children for their own benefit and never return the items - they take them away for a short period of time for disciplinary purposes and probably never touch them themselves while their child's not allowed to use them. So equating confiscation to theft is a rather silly argument...

Regardless of intent and time, I still think that the repossessing of someone else's possessions is wrong. Laying hands on someone's property without their consent should not be permitted.

The problem with all of this is what to do about it. Even though I believe that these forms of punishment are wrong, there is really nothing I can do about it. We can talk all day about this, but when it comes down to it, parents are probably just going to keep applying the same techiniques as they're parents.

So if and when you become a parent, as I assume you want to eventually, how are you going to discipline your children, as all forms of punishment would seem to be a violation of their rights in your eyes? Are you just going to allow them to run amok, or are you going to go down the ineffectual path of shouting louder and louder at them whenever they do something wrong until you can't shout any louder and they ignore it? Because I've done work teaching small children martial arts and the first thing I was taught in leadership classes is that shouting doesn't work unless it's used incredibly sparingly.

Violence is for sure not the way to teach a child, that would make them hate you. Fixing bad situations can go as good as sitting down in the living room and talking about the issue among one another. It might not solve the issue right away, but time can work wonders.

It's not really stealing if the parents payed for it them selfs.

Now BOTH of my Parents are Social Workers, and Violence is not an answer. Takeing toys and waiting until they behave is probably the most appropriate way to deal with bad behaviored children.

Now to the point of this 'stealing'. by the age of 14 we call should be mature enough to not cause/do bad things. Therefore, at 14 you will not have a job, and would have got most things from your parents/from your childhood. It's not against the law "never take from your kids even in punishment" Infact, if anything the law prefers we use this rather than leave bruises on our children. Since, as Cath said, you would see timeouts and the 'go to your room' and not come out as imprisonments or an act to take away there right. Also, some parents say "Thats it, get up to your room without supper" and you would see that as starvation? The good parents 9/10 times will bring something up to you, and chances are you probably were nibbling on snacks all day. I don't approve of this method myself, but it was leading up to my final point. "No more sweets for a week!" Starvation? I think not. Taken away there rights to east sweets? Yes. Violating there right? No. You are there parents, therefore you are in charge of them. They need to learn that there will always be someone in charge of you in live, and sometimes you just gotta do what they as, whether you like it or not.

« Last edited by Oh Joy Desctruction on Jun 12th 2010 »

Oh Joy Desctruction said:

by the age of 14 we call should be mature enough to not cause/do bad things.

Oh really? I believe that the (vast) majority of crime is done by people over the age of 14.

Therefore, at 14 you will not have a job, and would have got most things from your parents/from your childhood.

I had several jobs at the age of 14, but I do see your point.

It's not against the law "never take from your kids even in punishment" Infact, if anything the law prefers we use this rather than leave bruises on our children.

Actually "spanking" or using physical forms of punishment is not against the law either, and I have not seen where the government encourages or prefers one form over the other.

Since, as Cath said, you would see timeouts and the 'go to your room' and not come out as imprisonments or an act to take away there right.

Yes, that is correct

Also, some parents say "Thats it, get up to your room without supper" and you would see that as starvation?

This is more of a breach of responsibility. Parents are required to provide for their children, so depriving them of a meal is wrong.

"No more sweets for a week!" Starvation?

This is quite different however. "sweets" are extras. The parents are required to provide food for the child, but not necessarily these "extras".

Taken away there rights to east sweets?

No, now if the child bought the sweets by him/herself, then that is a completely different case.

You are there parents, therefore you are in charge of them. They need to learn that there will always be someone in charge of you in life, and sometimes you just gotta do what they as, whether you like it or not.

I agree that there is always an authority. However, there are rights that each human is born with, that cannot be taken away by a parent, government, or any other human body.

To repossess (even for a short time) property of someone else, in a way like this is in direct violation of their rights.

You seem to have ducked my question, Patriot. Seeing as you're apparently applying your libertarian political philosophy even to your parenting, how exactly do you plan to punish your children when they do something wrong? Or are you just going to be all carrot and no stick with them? Because I've found that while rewards for good behaviour have their place, if you're not going to directly punish bad behaviour it's still not a good method of teaching right and wrong. Especially as you seem to take the view that if they somehow get some other source of income, they're entitled to whatever they want and you can't take it away even on a temporary basis.

So given that you can't take away every perk from them, you're not willing to restrict their freedom of movement in any way, confiscate any of their favourite items or use physical punishment, what are you going to do if they, say... skive school? Because it's parents that get punished for that (usually by a fine if memory serves) in most countries, so you can't rely on the law to do it for you. You'll still allow them to get that shiny new games system they want and go out with their friends every night even if they haven't showed up to school for the past three weeks?

To repossess (even for a short time) property of someone else, in a way like this is in direct violation of their rights.

I would like you to stop and think about what you have just said here. Your entire argument is centered around the fact that children have the right to withold their belongings and the parents have no dominion over the child's belongings. Parents should have full control over their child's belongings because (a) they purchased it for the child, or (b) the child is dependant on the parents and needs their support in order to live a healthy life. I can assure you if the child is living underneath a roof that is NOT supported by their own income, they're still dependant on the parent.

I believe hitting your kids is a method many parents use because they have no other method to turn to. There's nothing really wrong with it as long as you don't kill your kids (I was beaten up plenty of times as a child). It's just not nearly the best course of action to take nor a very classy course of action either. Kids will make mistakes, and if you're patient enough it's plainly obvious that it is possible to raise a good member of society without smacking them across the face multiple times.

« Last edited by MasterMilotic on Jun 19th 2010 »

MasterMilotic-
I would like you to stop and think about what you have just said here. Your entire argument is centered around the fact that children have the right to withold their belongings and the parents have no dominion over the child's belongings. Parents should have full control over their child's belongings because (a) they purchased it for the child, or (b) the child is dependant on the parents and needs their support in order to live a healthy life. I can assure you if the child is living underneath a roof that is NOT supported by their own income, they're still dependant on the parent.

In (a) where it was bought for them then yes they do have the right to take it away. Since it was bought for that child by a or both parents then i think Parents should have the right to take it.

In (b) no. Because Most likely in Situation B the child took responsibility and bought it with thier own money, that, they earned or got. I think parents should respect the fact that that item has no connection to them whatsoever and that they should leave it alone. They may be dependant on their parents, or not depending on their age. They may have gotten a job. If so they could use that job to feed and clothes themselves.

I believe hitting your kids is a method many parents use because they have no other method to turn to. There's nothing really wrong with it as long as you don't kill your kids (I was beaten up plenty of times as a child). It's just not nearly the best course of action to take nor a very classy course of action either. Kids will make mistakes, and if you're patient enough it's plainly obvious that it is possible to raise a good member of society without smacking them across the face multiple times.

This was discussed by the Supreme Court as well
http://supreme.justia.com/us/430/651/
This is about school instating Corporal Punishment.

What i think of this is that this shouldn't happen, because where do you draw the line between abuse and punishment? The simple smack to the @ss and timeout only works for little kids. And if it stops working then do you really want to have parents beating kids under 10 years of age? When they get older beating kids as punishment is not smart. What if a parent went to far. Or their teenager acted in Self-Defence and hurt their parents, badly? ALSO to raise a good member of society would mean to raise someone who hasn't seen any form of violence.

I think that they do not need more punishment. I personally am still a child, and i go to school almost everyday (no longer due to summer). What do I see? I see kids my age well behaved. We may commit a small crime but there is no one try to start a nice little rebellion. Everyone is being good. I would like for you who think kids should get more punishment to go into a school and observe a days worth of classes.

In an elementary school you will see alot of little kids misbehaving. You will see teachers who punish them by saying no or removing them from an acting. They may be mad but most of the time they act good for the rest of the day.

In a middle or high school things will be very different. Teens will be alot more behaving, why, because they are much more mature. When they do something wrong they are given a lecture, lunch detention, after school detention, or Saturday Detention. That is the worst it has gotten when someone has done something wrong. Atleast that i have seen.

That would be my proof. My reasoning on why WE do not need more punishment. I am not taking this side because i am a child. And if you think that then i suggest you leave.

Discipline has nothing to do with how a child will turn out, its all about what area they live in and the crowd they hang out with.

bowow said:

Discipline has nothing to do with how a child will turn out, its all about what area they live in and the crowd they hang out with.

Theres no doubt that both of those things do have a big effect on the development of a child but discipline is equally important if not more so, if you are taught stealing is wrong for example and have that point drilled into you, your unlikely to start hanging out with bank robbers in the first place. By the same token if it did have no bearing then everyone who lived in a rough area would automatically grow up that way as well and this isn't the case (well for the most part at least).

On the topic having possessions confiscated. I think that a parent should be allowed to as long as it is only temporary. I did have a friend who got his DS (which was bought with his money) taken away and he never saw it again which was bull. But if had gotten it back, I would think it would be good discipline. Think about, parents more of less kids for the real world.

Tell me, what happens if you mess up on a loan, or your taxes, does the bank or the IRS give you a time out, no, they repossess your crap. Because you messed up. And they don't even give it back. The parents are teaching us responsibility, and that every action has a consequence, if children can understand this quicker (especially at younger ages) then they will grow to become more responsible members of society.

And when the crap is taken away for a short time and the parent isn't using whatever they took, it's less stealing, then taking the privilege away to entertain yourself with something you don't need to live.

Oh yeah, about sending people to their room, it works when the parents don't allow you to have a widescreen tv and your xbox in the room as well.