From the threads about corporal punishment, the consensus here seems to be that an unruly, misbehaved child needs to get his behind beat. My next question is, where's the line between physical discipline and outright child abuse? Have you ever seen any examples of parents who just go too far when it comes to hitting their kids?

My dad wasn't hesitant to use such force in his discipline that it bordered on brutality, so I can tell you that there's a very fine line between the two. Where it is I don't know. What I do know is that it wasn't fun to get beat.

I guess it becomes abuse when the parent flies into a rage, and starts using closed fists and leaves bruses and broke bones.

Dan70 wrote:

My dad wasn't hesitant to use such force in his discipline that it bordered on brutality, so I can tell you that there's a very fine line between the two. Where it is I don't know. What I do know is that it wasn't fun to get beat.

My Dad was the same as yours. When it escalates from a slap on the behind or the hands to being punched in the head, hit with whatever object happens to be around or beaten with a strap, then it becomes child abuse.

When it's done out of rage and the blows inflicted were hard enough to leave a mark. I'm not one of those "no hitting" types when it comes to disciplining a child, but the truth is that there can be a very fine line between physical discipline and child abuse. Before a parent resorts to whupping their kids butts, they need to calm and compose themselves first.

1) If you hit them enough to leave a lasting mark

2) If you hit them for every little infraction.

3) If you hit them with anything besides the flat of your hand

4) If hitting happens anywhere besides the hand or butt.

Yeah yeah, what everybody else said. I'm not above of a sound ass whupping, but I will be using a belt instead of a drop cord or a hot wheel track.

Nhaiyel wrote:

When it's done out of rage and the blows inflicted were hard enough to leave a mark. I'm not one of those "no hitting" types when it comes to disciplining a child, but the truth is that there can be a very fine line between physical discipline and child abuse. Before a parent resorts to whupping their kids butts, they need to calm and compose themselves first.

agree!

Others have basically said it. When it lasts for longer than 60 seconds, leaves a bruise and involved anything other than a open hand or belt.

Some people think corporal punishment is always inappropriate. I think it can be appropriate if used sparingly and with caution. Here are some possible guidelines.

What is the motivation for discipline? The primary motivation should be for the betterment of the child. Discipline is NOT be for the convenience of the parent. For example the parent shouldn't spank the kid because he/she (parent) is too lazy to use a more appropriate punishment that takes more work to put into place.

Never punish for an accident. Don't spank the kid for spilling his milk when he didn't mean to.

Corporal punishment should never leave a bruise or mark.

Corporal punishment should be rare. If the parent uses it all the time, or for trivial reasons, it loses its effectiveness.

There is a certain age window when corporal punishment is most appropriate. Age 3 to 10 is a possible range. It doesn't do any good to spank a baby, because he/she doesn't understand what's going on. And pre-teens are getting too old. There are other punishments that can be more appropriate and effective for pre-teens (grounding, loss of privilege, etc).

Corporal punishment should never be done in a way that embarrasses the child. It should be done in private in a manner that is respectful to the personhood of the child. Fathers disciplining their daughters should take special precaution here.

Never spank when angry. The parent must take time to evaluate the situation and think through what punishment is most appropriate.

Punishment needs to be at the “right” time so the child associates the punishment with the bad behavior. It should be fairly close to the time of the event. For example you wouldn’t punish a three year old for something they did a week ago. Their sense of time has not developed to the point where they can still associate the punishment with the act.

In most cases parents are the only ones who should spank. Teachers and relatives should not be using it. In cases of blended families it should be done by the parent, not the step-parent.

Nhaiyel wrote:

When it's done out of rage and the blows inflicted were hard enough to leave a mark. I'm not one of those "no hitting" types when it comes to disciplining a child, but the truth is that there can be a very fine line between physical discipline and child abuse. Before a parent resorts to whupping their kids butts, they need to calm and compose themselves first.

I totally agree with this. When a child misbehaves so egregiously that it incenses the parent, I think they should wait at least thirty minutes before they spank to give themselves time to calm down. If after that they still think the kid needs some forceful discipline for what they did, then they will at least not be lashing out from anger.

Chris wrote:

From the threads about corporal punishment, the consensus here seems to be that an unruly, misbehaved child needs to get his behind beat. My next question is, where's the line between physical discipline and outright child abuse? Have you ever seen any examples of parents who just go too far when it comes to hitting their kids?

I personally am for it when it comes to younger children (under 10), but only for certain types of disciplinary problems. If your toddler tries to grab a hot plate or a sharp object after you yell no, you should slap him on the hand. If a 4 year old is climing up on the counter or messing around in the medicine cabinet when he/she knows she's not supposed to, that deserves a spanking. A kindergartener who is seen fighting or beating up another student should also be spanked, then lectured.

But if you are beating your 12 year old with a belt for not taking out the trash or for getting poor grades in school, that's not the best form of discipline because all its doing is creating an environment of fear and intimidation, not respect. Also, a spanking for those types of behavior problems doesn't really address the underlying issues (why is he getting poor grades; why is he forgetting to take out the trash). Taking away privlidges and distractions are more effective forms of corrective actions for those types of problems.

It should also depend on the personality of the child and how excessive you are with it. Corporal punishment doesn't work for some children and there are many alternative forms of punishment. Unfortunately it's very subjective and the law is rather inconsistent when it comes to what is "excessive" and what is "acceptable". This is one of the reasons why corporal punishment is so contraversial.

I think that if the child has marks on him (blood, cuts, bruises or scars), that is a sign of child abuse. Children should never be hit in the face! The backside and legs is the only place corporal punishment should be administered and it obviously shouldn't be done with anything that's going to cut skin or break bones. I also think parents should explore other forms of discipline before they resort to corporal punishment as a first response.