Where should we draw the line? (Punishment)

[TheIslander]

_{Please read the topic before voting and please select the vote count option both if you are for and against corporal punishment- for more accuracy.}
Corporal punishment is the infliction of pain on a wrongdoer. There exists 3 types: Domestic (home punishment), School (punishment at school) and Judicial (on a national level).

Not long ago, I heard of a 9 year old boy who attacked and injured his teacher during one of his lessons at school. I have also heard of three 13 year old girls who sexually harassed one of their peers. Police have taken 'disciplinary' action against the aggressors in both situations.
I would like to ask, coming from a country which has abolished all kinds of corporal punishment.. what kind of disciplinary actions can the police take against 9 year olds and 13 year olds?

At such an age, money has no meaning - fining them or their guardians is useless, would they by sent to jail?
If so, how would jail help the children in any of the cases? or moreover punish them?
At such an age education is vital. Wouldn't sending them into solitary confinement (especially in such a mental state) influence them negatively rather than positively?

This is also the case with adults - it's not the first time that we've seen convicted rapists in trouble over and over again.

Is it time that Corporal Punishment is re-introduced? If so, on what levels? Should any restrictions be made to it?
What do you think? I'll post my opinion later. Also, has Dan released a video on this?

[MattGilb3rt]

I don't think violence solves anything in the long term way of fixing a situation that had occured.

It starts at home and at school in educating children that violence isn't a way to resolve problems in life.

But how to deal with problem children? Therapy and education and seeing what their home life is like and how they are treated by parents and siblings is a big factor in how their life evolves into adulthood, so talking to the parents and even educating them will help alot.

And for children that are violent at an early age, maybe correctional programmes obviously that produce a good atmosphere, but they learn by their mistakes, but are kept on a tight leash and learn also that with bad choices and actions have tough concequences in life.

But I do think some people are just born evil

Anyway its late zZzzZzZz

[The Doctor]

There should never be any kind of punishment. Only encouregment! That goes for the judicial system aswell as rasing of children.
People should either be locked in jail to correct (hence the word correctional facility). IF they are not corrected, then the facility needs to go over their procedure. If there for some reason is a person who dont respond at correction at all, then this person needs either encouregment or basically be locked away in a hospitable enviorment, much like you do with insane people. Theres not much more to it really... Punishment is revenge, and as we all know, or should know, revenge only leads to more revenge.

[zeromerc]

If I am thinking about stealing something what is going to keep me from doing it.

1. Knowing I will have to go to a nice facility where I get cable TV and weight rooms and get encouragement about not stealing OR

2. Knowing that if I do it and get caught I might get my hand cut off.

Yes, this is an extreme example but I don't see anything wrong with corporal punishment when its warranted.

I say we do it this way.

Non violent crimes
1st offense - counseling
2nd offense - correctional facility
3rd offense - corporal punishment

Violent crimes
1st offense - correctional facility
2nd offense - corporal punishment.

I believe everybody deserves a chance. But if you are given a chance and you dont change your ways that are acceptable then be prepared to suffer the consequences.

[Lex]

How sadistic, zeromerc.

Violence solves nothing, which is something that most people just can't seem to wrap their heads around.

[thedawnbegun]

For one thing, I don't think we should say that violence == corporal punishment. It's one thing to blatantly beat someone and another to administer organized punishment.

Regardless of support and its benefits, though, corporal punishment is just impractical. In schools, accusations of sexual harassment and all sorts of nasty stuff that goes with it would fly around incessantly, and there would inevitably people who would take advantage of their power. Judicially... where do we draw the line? Is there an age minimum or maximum? Who goes through with it?

[Philosoraptor]

I'm going to echo what seems to be the prevailing opinion here. Violence solves nothing. It is not an effective way of dealing with crimes.

[zeromerc]

so if you have a child (i use this example as its one of the closest bonds you could ever have) and somebody hurts them, as in a violent crime...

you think they should just be talked to about it? or maybe just put in jail for the rest of their lives?

please refer to my first example for how I feel about first time offenders v. repeat offenders

[Nakor]

But that's basically just going for revenge. It doesn't really help the situation much at all, and it's just reperpetrating the same (or another) crime against someone else. The law is best left sticking to what prevention it can, and keeping criminals out of public. (Plus, what about cases where people are later found innocent?)

[Lex]

Mar 15, 2010 16:39:26 GMT -5 zeromerc said:

so if you have a child (i use this example as its one of the closest bonds you could ever have) and somebody hurts them, as in a violent crime...

you think they should just be talked to about it? or maybe just put in jail for the rest of their lives?

please refer to my first example for how I feel about first time offenders v. repeat offenders

It's better than sinking to their level, right?

[zeromerc]

so its acceptable to just keep talking to them until either you or them die of old age while they keep doing what ever they like while you keep talking??

[Nakor]

Talking to them...? I assume if they committed a crime, they would be thrown in jail. I don't see why talking to them would at all be necessary, except for whatever duration any court case may require.

[zeromerc]

Is not putting them in jail a form of punishment and there for taking an action against them and lowering yourself to their level?

I mean where do you draw the line? How long do you allow them to be in a nicer facilty than some of your nations poor can afford?

Just like when I was growing up. The first time I took a cookie my mother told me never to do it again. The second time I took a cookie I got grounded. The third time I took a cookie I got swated and guess what I never did it again.

As stated before I am all for giving people second chances and for non violent crimes even third chances. There does however come a point when you must take a more severe course of action.

[Nakor]

The difference is putting them in jail is necessary to keep them off the streets, and keep other people safe from them. Torturing them, injuring them and so forth is unnecessary toward that goal.

And no, I don't think they need to be given much more than basic necessities. All the jails with golf courses and so forth rather irritate me.

[TheIslander]

There is a difference between "violence" and "punishment". Violence occurs spitefully, punishment occurs in retribution.
I do believe that violence should not be a solution, but I also think Judical punishment and corporal punishment in schools should be applied.
I think disruptive/rootless students are a big obstacle in education and a no-BS way of stopping it is punishment in schools, punishment which does not leave students scared forever ofcourse. How else would one control such students (as mentioned above) if not though physical punishment?

[Lex]

Mar 16, 2010 17:08:32 GMT -5 TheIslander said:

There is a difference between "violence" and "punishment". Violence occurs spitefully, punishment occurs in retribution.
I do believe that violence should not be a solution, but I also think Judical punishment and corporal punishment in schools should be applied.
I think disruptive/rootless students are a big obstacle in education and a no-BS way of stopping it is punishment in schools, punishment which does not leave students scared forever ofcourse. How else would one control such students (as mentioned above) if not though physical punishment?

I hope you live far away from me.

[TheIslander]

Mar 16, 2010 17:16:48 GMT -5 Lex said:

Mar 16, 2010 17:08:32 GMT -5 TheIslander said:

There is a difference between "violence" and "punishment". Violence occurs spitefully, punishment occurs in retribution.
I do believe that violence should not be a solution, but I also think Judical punishment and corporal punishment in schools should be applied.
I think disruptive/rootless students are a big obstacle in education and a no-BS way of stopping it is punishment in schools, punishment which does not leave students scared forever ofcourse. How else would one control such students (as mentioned above) if not though physical punishment?

I hope you live far away from me.

Why is that so?

[zeromerc]

I am okay with coporal punishment on the national level.

You know, You go out and kill some people and you might get the death penalty (notice I said might) for what you did as an adult.

I do not however want children being exposed to coporal punishment by the school. That is my job as a parent. If my child deserves a swat or a few days in the stocks (jusk kidding here) then I should be the one to decide.

I have a 5 and a 7 year old. The only time they get "coporal" punishment (example would be a swat or a slap on the wrist) would be when they reach the point of direct difiance. Most of the time is a conversation explaining the whys and what fors(sp?). I dont use it except in extreme circumstances.

[nickgreyden]

ok so a reoccuring theme here

I didn't get in a lot of trouble at home. Why? Cause my mom and dad would beat my ass and I didn't want that.

I didn't get in a lot of trouble at school. Why? Cause my mom and dad gave permission for my teachers to beat my ass, then I would get sent home where I'd get by butt tore up again. I didn't want that.

I don't break the law now that I'm out on my own. Why? My ass. Because after my mom and dad got finished beating it, the judge would lock it away, the school bullies who never grew up would beat it, then Big Bad Bubba would rape it. I don't want that.

So yes, violence solves a lot. But it prevents it as well. My kids don't do things around the house that they know will get their butts tore up, but they will push and press and lean on everything they can as far as they can when they know another punishment like a time out or a grounding is likely.

[llluminati]

Corporal punishment should only be reserved for repeat or violent offenders, but it should still be re-implemented. Certainly, people deserve chances, however, if it is your intention to maliciously harm someone or to repeatedly disregard other punishments, corporal punishment seems to be the only answer.