to refer to an act by parents intended to cause the child physical pain, but not injury, for purposes of correction or control of misbehavior”(Straus). The keywords in this quote is “physical pain not injury” This is what many anti spankers over look when making their case. Their beliefs are parents are beating their children to a pulp over some spilt juice. Of course there are always the cases that go away from the norm but in most cases this doesn’t occur. In the article Straus writes he implies that many studies have been taken on whether or not a child is really affected long term mentally by corporal punishment. He writes “Numerous studies have investigated the long-term disabling effects of physical "abuse"but despite the prevalence of corporal punishment, only a few studies have considered the possibility that "legitimate" corporal punishment is also a risk factor for psychological maladaptation in adulthood, and most of those have been confined to increased risk of aggression” This quote shows that there isn’t hard evidence that there is actually children that were hit who had a negative effect on them later in life. Of course there’s always the few studies that goes against this statement and they were affected by corporal punishment. But theres other factors that could also lead to a child being depressed, becoming a criminal, or a drug abuser like many anti corporal punishers believe. A child who has been never beaten in their lives has the same chance as a child who didn’t get beaten to rob a liquor store. Depending on how they grew up and their surroundings affects the way a child develops. Theres more in the equation then whether or not corporate punishment was used in the boy who abused
to refer to an act by parents intended to cause the child physical pain, but not injury, for purposes of correction or control of misbehavior”(Straus). The keywords in this quote is “physical pain not injury” This is what many anti spankers over look when making their case. Their beliefs are parents are beating their children to a pulp over some spilt juice. Of course there are always the cases that go away from the norm but in most cases this doesn’t occur. In the article Straus writes he implies that many studies have been taken on whether or not a child is really affected long term mentally by corporal punishment. He writes “Numerous studies have investigated the long-term disabling effects of physical "abuse"but despite the prevalence of corporal punishment, only a few studies have considered the possibility that "legitimate" corporal punishment is also a risk factor for psychological maladaptation in adulthood, and most of those have been confined to increased risk of aggression” This quote shows that there isn’t hard evidence that there is actually children that were hit who had a negative effect on them later in life. Of course there’s always the few studies that goes against this statement and they were affected by corporal punishment. But theres other factors that could also lead to a child being depressed, becoming a criminal, or a drug abuser like many anti corporal punishers believe. A child who has been never beaten in their lives has the same chance as a child who didn’t get beaten to rob a liquor store. Depending on how they grew up and their surroundings affects the way a child develops. Theres more in the equation then whether or not corporate punishment was used in the boy who abused