Georgia paddling video

[mummabear]

I think it is ridiculous to say spanking is not ok because adults cannot hit one another to settle issues. Adults also cannot put one another in corners or time out or take away the favorite possessions of other people, or remove them forcibly from something fun, etc

Except we do:
put one another in corners or time out-overnight drunk tank, any jail sentence.
take away the favorite possessions-repo, police confiscation
remove them forcibly from something fun-bouncers in the bar, security at a concert or store, police breaking up a party....

 

[NHdisneylover]

Except we do:
put one another in corners or time out-overnight drunk tank, any jail sentence.
take away the favorite possessions-repo, police confiscation
remove them forcibly from something fun-bouncers in the bar, security at a concert or store, police breaking up a party....

all of there references I have seen about it were talking about normal adult relationships, or your boss--not police. But, OK, point taken.

Though it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be--possessions might be repossessed if the person is unable to pay for them and owes money on them, but not as punishment for some other offense (with the possible exception of impounding an auto--though that is generally still only if there is an auto related issue--such as leaving it parked where it should not be. There is no danger of being sentenced to having your car impounded for six weeks as a result of spitting on a store manger you were annoyed with, etc).

Of course, in the US, for the worst offenses we put adults to death--so I am not very comfortable thinking that punishments should all be analogous anyway. . .


And then this whole thing brings up an interesting question as to how we treat adults. For a minor infraction, in which the person is not a danger to society, so the jail term is meant as a deterrent to keep the offended from repeating, not to make the rest of us safe by isolating the offender from society (and that is the majority of jail sentences----deterrent) is it really more humane to have someone, especially if they are lower income and have children, serve 3-6 months in jail, lose their income for that time period (and likely lose their job, resulting in even a greater time period of lost income), be forced to lose out on relationships with their spouse and children and friends etc for that period of time, etc (all of which also punishes the family of the offender) than it is to cause some short lived, one time, controlled physical pain to the offender only, without them missing any work, or more than a few hours of family time?
Would it make sense to give people a choice? Sometimes there is a choice between a fine and jail time, but for those who would be most effected by lost income/etc of a jail sentence, having the money to pay a fine is often not really possible, meaning only the higher income people have the option.

I honestly do not know---I had never thought about it until this thread got the wheels in my head spinning.

 

[mummabear]

all of there references I have seen about it were talking about normal adult relationships, or your boss--not police. But, OK, point taken.

Well parents and teachers are authority figures for kids. Your employer or the police would be the equvilent to adults.
Here in NZ they will literally confiscate and crush your car if you are caught street racing (but for some dumb reason have not extended this to drunk drivers).

Are you suggesting giving offenders a beating is more fair or a better deterrent?

 

[PollyannaMom]

And then this whole thing brings up an interesting question as to how we treat adults. For a minor infraction, in which the person is not a danger to society, so the jail term is meant as a deterrent to keep the offended from repeating, not to make the rest of us safe by isolating the offender from society (and that is the majority of jail sentences----deterrent) is it really more humane to have someone, especially if they are lower income and have children, serve 3-6 months in jail, lose their income for that time period (and likely lose their job, resulting in even a greater time period of lost income), be forced to lose out on relationships with their spouse and children and friends etc for that period of time, etc (all of which also punishes the family of the offender) than it is to cause some short lived, one time, controlled physical pain to the offender only, without them missing any work, or more than a few hours of family time?
Would it make sense to give people a choice? Sometimes there is a choice between a fine and jail time, but for those who would be most effected by lost income/etc of a jail sentence, having the money to pay a fine is often not really possible, meaning only the higher income people have the option.

I agree with you that jail time isn't the answer for minor, non-dangerous offenses. But I think the other choice should be community service - helping society, rather than costing it more money to keep the person in jail.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Well parents and teachers are authority figures for kids. Your employer or the police would be the equvilent to adults.
Here in NZ they will literally confiscate and crush your car if you are caught street racing (but for some dumb reason have not extended this to drunk drivers).

Are you suggesting giving offenders a beating is more fair or a better deterrent?

Your boss can't do any of these things. At least not in the US (I think you are from NZ?). Your boss cannot take away your car or computer if they do not like the job you do for them, or you are rude to them (now, they can stop allowing you to use a company owned item). Your boss most certainly can not hold you against your will or pick you up and physically move you to another area if you don't want to leave your desk and are not posing a threat, etc. The boss would have to call in police to deal with you if you simply refused to cooperate.

That is just it---who we expect to handle things with kids, and how we expect them to be handled are different so going too far comparing them seems silly to me.

Are you suggesting giving offenders a beating is more fair or a better deterrent?

NO. First of all, there is a huge difference between a few controlled smacks and a "beating" that is like equating being sent to bed without dinner starvation. Secondly,--as i said I have no answer for the question I posed and had not though of it until this thread (on the heels of a conversations about the unintended harm the bail system cause to low income people in the US that i happened to be part of last night): but it is something to ponder:

A jail sentence doesn't usually mean someone goes to jail for 3 months, is bored, come out and return to life just like it was beforehand. It often means their family goes without income throughout the time of the sentence, that they are unemployed (and less employable) after the fact which in turn leaves them without income for even longer (and likely without healthcare, etc). These things can mean the family is without housing, or is forced to move into a lower standard of housing, or loses a car, or or or. A jail sentence for a single parent can mean that children go into foster care and have their lives greatly disrupted. Etc., etc.

At some point is the level of impact on a life (or many lives) reasonable in order to deter someone from a smaller crime? Are there other things which would have less long term impact and less impact on those innocent people associated with the offender, which could have as good of a deterrent effect? If one of those things is physical in nature, but with no serious danger or lasting effect past initial pain at the time, is that less humane (simply because the pain inflicted is physical rather than emotional) than a non physical punishment with long lasting negative repercussions?

I don'T know--but I think it is kind of interesting to ponder--and this thread where some have a knee jerk reaction to any physical punishment of a child as being very very wrong, simply because it IS physical, got me started pondering it.

ETA: I feel like I should point out again, that I did not spank my kids and am not "pro spanking" and think that 99.9% of the time there are better options. I am just willing to believe that for some kids, in some situations, and with some parents, minor physical punishment is not a horrific thing (and then that got me thinking about adults)

 

[NHdisneylover]

I agree with you that jail time isn't the answer for minor, non-dangerous offenses. But I think the other choice should be community service - helping society, rather than costing it more money to keep the person in jail.

I think community service is a great idea--and very worthwhile when it can be managed and restructuring the system to make this an option more often seems smart to me. It would take a big overhaul to get things in place that allowed supervised, reasonable, involvement in place that even low income people with limited transportation options could get to, etc--but it would absolutely be worth it.
There would need to be a lot of thought put in to how to put people to work without taking away needed, local ,unskilled labor jobs, etc though too.

There are so many nuances and variables to all of these things that should be considered, it is kind of overwhelming. I'm glad I am not in a position to ave to decide anything!