Corporal punishment should be re-introduced in schools

Yes Parents agree upon the return of half of parents - A survey suggests that half of parents would like to see the return of corporal punishment in schools in the UK - which was outlawed 14 years ago. Article: Should corporal punishment return to the classroom? Source BBC

No Difference between FEAR and RESPECT There is a difference between FEAR & Respect. Corporal punishment maintains order by the rule of fear. It does not establish respect. Respect leads to order and harmony, fear leads to resentment and disorder. Nick Logan, UK

- Violence breeds violence. This is a very simple fact. If we hit children when they annoy us, they will learn to do the same. Solution: Teachers require more training. In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement (1), 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the reintroduction of corporal punishment. We should adhere to the teachers requests. The only reason why a minority of teachers wants to see a reintroduction of corporal punishment is because they do not have any effective discipline methods under their belts. The answer? More training, not resorting to corporal punishment. Also remember that school is for learning and it is the teachers job if the students are doing poorly.

There has been an increase in crime It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime (1).

You cannot single handedly blame the banning of corporal punishment for the rapid rise in crime. There are many factors, and there is nothing that definitively shows that there is a link between the banning of corporal punishment and the rise in crime. There are many things that have changed and the rise in crime is a combination of some or maybe even all of these factors, things like increase in population, increasing living expectations, the poor and the rich living in a close proximity.

We should not bring back corporal punishment on a whim that it may possibly decrease the levels of crime. Also, this theory was tested in America, where it's flipped around and the states in the US that had corporal punishment were the states with the highest murder rates. Those eight paddling states are. in order by murder rate: Louisiana, which has the highest murder rate in the nation (6th in the nation by percentage of students struck by educators); Mississippi, which has the 2nd highest murder rate in the nation (1st by percentage of students struck by educators); Georgia which has the 4th highest murder rate (7th in the nation by percentage of students struck by educators); ETC The education system cannot be a complete substitute for poor parenting, though it has a part to play. Schools may complete social instruction, but what we see now is a lack of even it's most fundamental aspects, and work on repairing this must start in the home, where children learn by example from their parents. p.s. that is also sexist - there is no reason a woman cannot take the role of the father figure.

there is a lack of father figures in the home - In the family, there once was a strong male figure that children would fear. However, with the increase in single parent families, often consisting of a mother, that figure has gone. Children fear nothing these days and the reintroduction of corporal punishment would give them some fear and this would curb disruptive behaviour in the classroom.

A woman cannot realistically be both mother and father no matter how hard she may try. Other sanctions have no effect It is all well and good those on the sidelines saying that giving children a small wrap on the knuckles is morally outrageous but they are not the ones who witness appalling behaviour in the classroom. If you ask the teachers, those on the front line of disruptive students, a recurring comment is that with corporal punishment off the agenda, there are no sanctions available to teachers for

It is true that teachers cannot hit children but this was because beforehand, they abused their power on occasions and this cannot be tolerated in society. The law is there simply to protect the children. Clearly if teachers cannot get children to behave using correct behavioural techniques and being strict but without punishment physically then clearly they are not as qualified

the most stubborn of terrors! Rights culture needs to be impeded - Childrens behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture. Therefore, a teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of but you can't take away my freedom, you have no right or I have rights. If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. -

as we once thought to handle children. Teachers can impose a detention, regards of the child's retort. Teachers *do* have this authority.

It will improve the lives of those who are bullied - There is a real feeling amongst those who are bullied that telling the teacher will worsen the problem, not make it better. Victims of bullying fear repercussions. However, if there was a system of corporal punishment behind the teachers, then something could be done which would scare the bullies out of their bullying ways. - This would open bully victims up as they would discuss bullying issues with teachers knowing that something definitive could be done. - If a child thinks it's okay to hit because a teacher or adult uses corporal punishment then that child is slow and fails to realize the purpose and meaning behind such an action. - Besides a good and effective teacher is not going to use corporal punishment all the time, but as a last resort when all else fails. A threat is no good unless there is some fearful truth behind it. - Also, teachers are only ignorant to bullying matters because they know they cannot realistically do much to stop it. So in effect, bullying has gotten a lot meaner. it works!

Often when nothing is done about bullying it is actually the teachers being ignorant to the goings-on of the playground. The teacher could just as easily with that power turn around and strike the bullied childsay for example if they are from a bad background that are not liked by the teacher, yet still bullied by their peers. Having authority would not necessarily make teachers do the right thing. Often with the authority that they possess now, teachers fail to combat bullying- giving them more will not necessarily solve the issue. Actually, when teachers hit, it actually lets the child think that violence is okay and that they CAN take it out on others

Not to call you old, but the 1950s/1960s was a

Corporal punishment is the most effective way of maintaining school discipline and dealing with juvenile crime. Was effective during the late 1950s/early 1960s. Discipline was strict. Corporal punishment was used for minor infringements of rules, for deliberate defiance and to prevent prosecution for criminal offences.

long time ago. As time changes, so do problems and the way you deal with them. Some children respond to it but others respond negatively to it. If a child really responds negatively to it, then you have a worse problem than you started with. Mental illness is much more prevalent today than it was in the 1950s/1960s. If a student is acting out due to mental illness and they are punished for it that will make the mental illness worse. Also, culture had become more "me centered". People are much more self-centered and selfish now than in the 1950s/1960s. It's a lot more likely now that a teacher will abuse their power than in the 1950s/1960s. If a teacher abuses their power, students will be abused. This will cause even more trouble than the corporal punishment was supposed to fix. Also, a student can falsely claim that they were abused by a teacher. This could ruin the teacher's career and lower the chances of them getting another job.

it makes a direct link between a behavior and its bad consequences - Today boys and girls ignore the consequences of their behavior. - They underestimate their responsibilities, especially when they are teens. Alcoholism, unexpected pregnancy , etc... would be avoided if theres a strict sentence (i.e. corporal punishment) for misbehavior had been far earlier decided and operated .

Corporal punishment does not actually administer a direct cause-and-effect link between a behavior and its bad consequences.

Education and nonaggressive, impersonal deterrents (such as educating them about the financial and psychological consequences of teen pregnancy) are far more effective if you want to show them a direct cause-and-effect relationship.

Corporal Punishment has now been completely banned in 24 countries: Ex: Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela. Furthermore, there are numerous countries which are on their way to banning it such as Italy and Nepal, who have forbidden it by the courts but not by law as of yet. Corporal punishment is becoming widely discussed all over the world and the consideration to completely ban it is becoming a frequent query. Therefore, corporal punishment should not be reintroduced as evidently the fact that so many countries are against it portrays the negativity it brings and the banning of it in so many countries must be for a good reason.

It increases the rate of crime and violence. Corporal punishment can be associated with higher rates of aggression, more substance abuse and an increased risk of crime and violence as many victims of corporal punishment tend to lash out and repeat this abuse as they don't know any better.

If there were any doubts all these countries would not have banned it and the UK would not have banned it in schools in the first place! - To reinstate something which has already been thoroughly discussed years ago and of which the outcome was negative, would be absurd! It has negative psychological effects A low self-esteem is one of the principle problems brought on by corporal punishment and can result in anxiety difficulties, alcohol dependency, delinquency and insecurity. Victims of this physical violence also tend to be more shy and resentful than those who are not subject to physical harm.

Furthermore, corporal punishment sees the deterioration of the relationship between the victim and the person exercising the violence, whether that of a parent or a guardian or a

teacher. Nevertheless, this means that corporal punishment can ruin the lives of children through its negative psychological effects. Additionally, undoubtedly it destroys the rapport of the child with whoever conducts the corporal punishment due to a lack of trust.

To discipline or punish a child through physical violence is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights. Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child declares that "Children and young people have the right to physical and personal integrity. All services should ensure that child protection is based on this right and that definitions of abuse do not condone any level of violence to children."

As well as being lawfully wrong, corporal punishment is morally wrong. There are plenty of other alternative methods to discipline a child other than beating the child! For example, a person can take away the privileges of the child or prevent them from carrying out their hobbies or even insist that they do some other form of work to make up for their bad behaviour. Nonetheless, physically harming the child is completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Would the conductor of the corporal punishment like it if it were the other way round and it were him/her getting beaten? I think not.

For children, actions speak louder than words. Children usually learn by observing role models and imitating them. Especially younger ones who do not fully understand the abstract

moral concepts (empty words) behind the punishments, making them reliant to whoever the nearest role model is. Thus when you hit children very often they're at risk of thinking that morality only exists if you get caught/punished and if you're all grown up it's fine to hit smaller and powerless people.

And corporal punishment does not work especially to those children who are too predisposed to violence and alienation, such as sociopaths. If anything you're just encouraging them on how to take their own personal grudges onto other people and justify them with empty words. I personally do not see a beneficial relation corporal punishment has with constructive parental modeling. My opponent believes some negative things about children, but gives no evidence that children are worse than in previous generations. Let's look at some actual evidence.

Children are rude, selfish, irritating and ignorant because they have no accountability anymore.

The most cited studies of spanking almost all found that spanking is detrimental to discipline: "Among the respondents without a history of physical or sexual abuse during childhood, those who reported being slapped or spanked "often" or "sometimes" had significantly higher lifetime rates of anxiety disorders , alcohol abuse or dependence and one or more externalizing problems, compared with those who reported "never" being slapped or spanked."

"The results generally indicated a linear positive association between physical punishment and child aggression. [...] The combination of infrequent reasoning and frequent spanking was associated with

dramatically increased aggression."[2]

"The findings were consistent with a socialization model in which higher levels of severity in parental punishment practices are associated with higher levels of children's subsequent aggression toward peers. Findings indicated that children who had been spanked evidenced levels of aggression that were higher than those who had not been spanked, and children who had been the objects of violent discipline became the most aggressive of all groups. [...] The findings suggest that in spite of parents' goals, spanking fails to promote prosocial development and, instead, is associated with higher rates of aggression toward peers."[3]

"When parents use corporal punishment to reduce ASB [anti-social behaviour], the longterm effect tends to be the opposite. The findings suggest that if parents replace corporal punishment by nonviolent modes of discipline, it could reduce the risk of ASB among children and reduce the level of violence in American society."[4]

My opponent doesn't say why he thinks it is necessary to physically punish children rather than warn them, reason with them, remove them from the situation, or otherwise discipline them. I fail to see what possible benefit can be derived from an adult inflicting violence on a defenceless child. How this is supposed to make a child reasonable is not explained by proponents of corporal punishment. I'm sure readers have seen on the streets parents losing their temper with their children and smacking them.

Approval of corporal punishment gives an adult license to act out of temper.

In the US, the National Association of Secondary School Principals has expressed its opposition to corporal punishment in schools.[7] If there is any correlation between corporal punishment and crime, it is that use of corporal punishment coincides with crime.

- Crime in the UK (which is what my opponent is referring to with his 67% increase) has been rising since 1918. - Plainly banning corporal punishment is not the reason for an upwards trend. - Corporal punishment was actually banned in 1986. There would then be a delay until children reached typical criminal age. - Citing the crime increase since 1981 doesn't tell you anything useful. My opponent claims that corporal punishment would be effective against bullying. Is my opponent claiming that bullying is a recent phenomenon, and does not actually occur in places which still have corporal punishment? Violence committed by adults on defenceless children is not defensible. If an adult assaults an adult in this manner it is criminal. Guards are not permitted to paddle prisoners. Why is this seen as an acceptable way of disciplining children? If we cannot treat adults in this way, if to do so is abuse, why do some think children should be so dealt with? Also, what lesson can children possibly learn from corporal punishment, except might make right? Research indicates that corporal punishment may adversely affect a student's self-image and his or her school achievement.

Research has also shown a correlation between the use of corporal punishment and increased school truancy, drop-out rates, violence, and vandalism.

- Corporal punishment has been shown to increase the risk of the victim becoming a wife beater in later life. It has also been shown to lead to a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems.] Spanking has been proven to cause violence in children, and that is sufficient to condemn it. "Yelling at a child causes more mental damage than spanking." Unwarranted assertion, but irrelevant, as I am not claiming that yelling is a useful alternative to corporal punishment. - My opponent is right that there are (many) other factors involved in crime. I think it will be difficult for him to show that lack of corporal punishment is responsible for an upsurge in school shootings, gang rape and assault. My opponent does not say why it is not okay to hit other adults, including prisoners, but it is okay to hit children. Corporal punishment has no place in a humane society. It is violence, it is psychologically damaging, and it is detrimental to society at large.

Corporal or physical punishment, which is the most common form of physical violence perpetrated by adults against children in Mauritius, is defined as as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting (smacking, slapping, spanking) children, with the hand or with an implement a whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, biting, pulling hair or boxing ears, caning, forcing children to stay in uncomfortable positions, burning, scalding, or forced ingestion. In the view of the Committee,

corporal punishment is invariably degrading.4= UNCRC General Comment No. 8(2006) The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (articles 19, 28(2) and 37, inter alia) The issue of corporal punishment has been dealt with in all the previous Annual Reports of the Ombudsperson for Children. In 2006, the OCO carried out a survey with a sample of 240 school children on Violence against Children. Physical violence was the most common one, representing 76% of the responses. Among the perpetrators mothers were the most cited, 39%, and fathers were at 32%. The main reason for the violence was said to be disobedience5=Ombudsperson for Childrens Annual Report 2006 The number of reported cases of physical abuse on children is increasing year after year. The most common ones are at school and in the home. In our laws, corporal punishment is prohibited in our schools under section 13(4) of the Education Regulations of 1957 which reads; No Corporal Punishment shall be inflicted on any pupil in any school. I found this provision insufficient and made several proposals to the MEHR. These are discussed in Chapter IX.

Summary: To discipline or punish a child through physical violence is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights In the short term, corporal punishment has been shown to be no more effective than other methods of discipline. There is a body of evidence and theory which shows that corporal punishment is a stressor and can lead to a violent reaction. This establishes causation beyond mere correlation. My opponents failed to show that any of the things he claimed were in fact linked. There is also the human rights issue which speaks against corporal punishment. My opponent has been unable to say why it is not okay to hit others, including prisoners, but it is okay to hit children. This is not right! Violence against children must stop. Educational Institutions have for primary aim to inculcate values and most importantly respect. However, Corporal punishment does not establish respect, instead, it maintains order by the rule of fear. Respect leads to order and harmony, fear leads to resentment and disorder. In a nutshell, we the Foxes, undoubtedly and firmly believe that corporal punishment is not THE solution to the myriad problems of indiscipline in school or even in the disequilibrium in public order of the society. After all, Violence breeds violence and corporal punishment breeds violence.