PDA

JOIN THE FORUM LOUNGE!

By Joining The Forum Lounge you will be able to see the pictures in this thread and post a reply. Also, after 25 posts you'll be able to see the hidden forums as well!

It's free and all of your information is confidential.

Click here to begin interacting!
Click here to register

Join in on this Discussion and see the pictures. Click here-> : Land of the Free?


Manntis
01-21-2007, 09:28 AM
No-spanking law for kids under age 3 proposed for California

By Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a six-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders likely only would have to attend parenting classes.

The idea is encountering skepticism even before it's been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists -- many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective -- the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider ``nanny government.''

``Where do you stop?'' asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn't be spanked but has no desire to make it the law. ``At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.''

One San Jose mother of three said she believes spanking is a poor way to discipline children, but she also wondered whether a legislative ban makes sense. Should a mom who slaps her misbehaving kid in the supermarket, she asked, be liable for a crime?

``If my 6-year-old doesn't put his clothes in the hamper, I'm not going to whack him, he just won't get his clothes washed,'' said Peggy Hertzberg, 38, who teaches parenting classes at the YWCA. ``I think instead of banning spanking, parents need to learn different ways of disciplining and redirecting their children.''

Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979.

Nazario said there's no good rationale for hitting a child under 3, so the state should draw a ``bright line'' in the law making it clear.

``Why do we allow parents to hit a little child and not someone their own size?'' said Nazario, a professor at the University of San Francisco Law School. ``Everyone in the state is protected from physical violence, so where do you draw the line? To take a child and spank his little butt until he starts crying, some people would define that as physical violence.''

It's unclear how a spanking ban would be enforced. Most slapping, after all, happens in the confines of a home, and most children up to age 3 aren't capable of reporting it.

Doctors, social workers and others who believe a child has been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. Nazario said he and Lieber are still debating whether to treat slapping the same way, or simply to encourage those who witness it to report it. But in either case, said Lieber, the law ``would allow people who view a beating to say, `Excuse me, that's against the law.' ''

Experts in child psychology disagree whether spanking is a legitimate or effective way for parents to discipline their children. 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.''

But Lieber is optimistic that lawmakers will find her proposal hard to resist. For the record, she does not have children and says she was not slapped as a child. But she does have a cat named Snoop, which her veterinarian told her never to hit.

"And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, "you should never hit a kid.''

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/16484624.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

beefhole
01-21-2007, 10:42 AM
Land of the spoiled and pussified!

czarofzar
01-21-2007, 10:51 AM
Been there done that.
beat 'em all you want, spanking doesn't work. You'll just end up hitting them harder. They are children, ya idiots. They can't help it. However a 'fresh one' once in a rare while or fear of this battle station, will keep the rebel alliance in line.

Cosby
01-21-2007, 11:01 AM
Land of the spoiled and pussified!

well put

Herschel
01-21-2007, 01:33 PM
I believe that it's things like this that are causing the world to be filled with to many assholes. I look at it like this... The real world sucks ass a lot of the time and if we protect our children from all of the bad and painful in the world then we are to blame for a society that turns "Merry Christmas" into "Happy Holidays" because some lame ass has nothing better to do in the world than get pissed because someone says "Merry Christmas" to him and he so happens to be Jewish.

Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not Mel Gibson, I'm just saying that by putting our children into a bubble to protect them from the world only serves to cripple their ability to deal with real life in real life situations.

I'm also not saying that it's ok to beat the living shit out of your children, but I remember being little and when I did something real bad it was "Time To Go Get Me A Switch Boy..." and 1 of 2 things happend as a result of this. 1.) I was much less likely to do whatever it was because the end result was painful or, 2.) I learned to be smarter in my execution of said "bad act" (i.e. when you sneek the car out to go meet your girlfriend before you have your licence....make sure your father is actually asleep...). Either way I learned something. It just seems to me that people want to desensitize children these days to the point that we're churning out a bunch of spineless internet bastards that get their feelers hurt way to easily to actually survive in the real world (see anything labled "Emo").

I was listining to a talk show about this yesterday and I heard someone make a good point. The example used was the boiling pot of water. The question posed was "Would you not rather your child feel a little sting from being slapped on the hand (which gives them incentive to not grab the pot handle again) as opposed to a life time of disfigurement?"

For the love of cheese, people...Please stop making your kids into spineless pansies.

Supper
01-21-2007, 01:56 PM
Thats Kommiefornia for ya.

Love the words she used, 'beat' 'whip' etc

rodney87
01-21-2007, 02:09 PM
Land of the spoiled and pussified!

X2

I've been worried about todays kids for years, and I'm only 21. its that bad.

Animal
01-21-2007, 05:42 PM
i swear to $DIETY
the more I see shit like this happening, the more I like the idea of moving to Canada...

beefhole
01-21-2007, 05:46 PM
Our generation is fucked (I'm 23). Maybe we'll get a surprise. The teenagers these days are a bunch of pussy punks. These kids are scrawny and all seem to have fros and mega big hair. It's pathetic. Put some decent clothes on and get a haircut. Be respectable!

Supper
01-21-2007, 06:20 PM
the more I like the idea of moving to Canada...
or Alaska. They seem to be about 15 yeas behind the ConUS

czarofzar
01-21-2007, 06:55 PM
er....nt

FSURedFD
01-21-2007, 07:27 PM
Our generation is fucked (I'm 23). Maybe we'll get a surprise. The teenagers these days are a bunch of pussy punks. These kids are scrawny and all seem to have fros and mega big hair. It's pathetic. Put some decent clothes on and get a haircut. Be respectable!


Dude, you sound like your 50. Just call them whippersnappers already :D:

I have to foster children living in my house. My cousins [My parent's neice (7) and nephew (13)] and both have come a long way since we've had them. Still, they both need an occasional smacking every now and then, but we can't because there's a good chance that they will go running to their real (deadbeat) parents crying. At that point we'll prob end up in court again. It sucks when you have to raise other people's kids and you can't raise them your way.

JOIN THE FORUM LOUNGE!

By Joining The Forum Lounge you will be able to see the pictures in this thread and post a reply. Also, after 25 posts you'll be able to see the hidden forums as well!

It's free and all of your information is confidential.

Click here to begin interacting!
Click here to register