Corrective punishments

Can there be an 'it depends' option?

This topic is full of grey areas and solely depends on personnal opinion. My definition of forceful: A punishment which will inflict immediate but not long term suffering. E.g. Smacking.

I believe it to be acceptable only if the child's parent/guardian is inflicting the punishment, not teachers, bobbies or any other third party.

I believe it to be acceptable only if the child's parent/guardian is inflicting the punishment, not teachers, bobbies or any other third party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes young Settt that would be OK if the parents would do it. If however it was deemed necessary that a third party should inflict the punishment then the parent must be present during application. If the parent doesn't agree then an independent party must view the chastisement to see no cruelty takes place. On no account must the penalty be waived because the parents object. The punishment must be proportional to the misdemeanor however. Verbal abuse to authority should carry lines. Damage to property should be allocated detention. Assault should have physical deterrence applied.

And yet curiously the ONLY strategy to stop bullying in schools seems to be to get perpetrator and victim together to sort things out. Perversely this has been proved to be almost 100% successful, other strategies not working at all.
(Speaks an ex-teacher who wished the statistics showed it the other way round!)

And yet curiously the ONLY strategy to stop bullying in schools seems to be to get perpetrator and victim together to sort things out. Perversely this has been proved to be almost 100% successful, other strategies not working at all.
(Speaks an ex-teacher who wished the statistics showed it the other way round!) [/quote]

Now this has really got me angry!!

Too bloody right they should sit down and discuss it. As I said in the original thread, belting the bully is no good if the bullying itself is not addressed.

The reason i'm angry is because I have a friend whose teenage daughter was bullied at junior school, then again more recently at secondry school. And i'm not just talking verbally, but pysically (and mentally) as well. On both occasions she sat down with the bully and explained how being bullied made her feel. In turn the bully had to say why they bullied her. My friends daughter now considers her ex bullies to be among her most trusted friends.

I'm so proud of her for proving that there's no need to retaliate in a physical manner, which is why I voted no.

I am so glad it worked for friend's daughter- but you were lucky in having a school head who took the thing seriously from the start (my son was not so lucky..).

That is the whole paradox of human behaviour: for other offences like vandalism, theft and abuse of authority the talking approach does NOT work and physical correction seems to be the only thing to get through to the offender.
(that is why I wrote that I wished it wasn't so for bullying- life would be so much simpler if one approach to correction would cover all offences!)

Much as I agree that petty crime in this Country is getting ridiculous - I cannot understand how hitting people is the answer.

Admittedly, I have'nt really got an alternative best punishment fits all or an answer to end all problems - but I can say I do not agree with one word anyone has said here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

While not agreeing with your opinion I respect it and defend your right to have it but let me put something to you. How would YOU feel if YOUR Mother over 80 was knocked down and walloped and her bags stolen by a young thug to feed his drug habit. He was subsequently caught and sent to court.

The magistrate or whoever in his wisdom said this geezer was "an unfortunate young man who had fallen on bad times" and promptly sentenced him to "COMMUNITY SERVICE".

The old ladies son however had friends and that young thug will not walk again for a very long time if at all. He also cannot use his hands for a while either.

The courts don't want to send people to prison for petty crime because it is too expensive. It is cheaper and more worthwhile for the community for the defendant to have an ASBO placed on him or have community service. (Apparantly)

When I first heard of ASBO's i thought, "well, they ain't gonna work. They're just there to make the government look like they're doing something." They only will work if there is much stricter rules on the offenders. Community Service may well be cleaning graffiti, but it never amounts to too anywhere near 200 hrs. Gravedigging? A bit pointless and just puts people out of work. Are you aware of the old VIctorian punishment of having to turn a handle on a machine but the handle doesn't do anything. The criminal turns and turns thousands if time and if the gaurd feels like it, he can tighten the handle to make it harder.

I think community service is too leniant. I think it should be much harder. People only comply because they don't want to go to jail. The idea of making them wear orange uniforms seems funny.

Maybe we should not go as far as capital punishment, but maybe consider (and please don't anyone get offended or take this the wrong way - it's just an idea) flogging or something of that measure. It's cheap, efficient, painful for some time and if doubt anyone would want to go through that. But maybe we're approaching it all wrong. What if parents and teachers should have more liberty to dish out harsher punishments at an early age so the future vandal won't go off the rails?

Maybe that will open up the system to abuse by parents and teachers, as well as the criminal justice system?

I'm sorry but your views are just a tad too hardcore for me, and it's ever so slightly disturbing for someone of your age to be saying such things.

How many of those on this forum would accept the death penalty for the paedophilic murder of a child if it was GUARANTEED that the right person had been convicted (for example by DNA evidence backed up by identification?)

Thats a tough one. Probably not. Although I am all for force in punishments, I don't think killing someone for a crime will sort it out. (Except for crimes of high treason). It doesn't really punish anyone and two wrongs don't make a right. I suppose it depends on the situation as there are alot of 'ifs' and 'buts'.

I think they'd we'd (I can't keep seperating myself from the rest of the youth even if it is a mucked up generation) only gain the concept of retribution if punishments were alot harsher. That would up the deterrence thus more protection for society. The British Justice system is becoming more towards the style of reformation, and whilst on work experience i observed the scentencing of a teenager who was supply the Class C drug cannabis to his friends and family. He got community service because he obviously was sorry and it would be better for everyone involved.