SIX QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED WHAT IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (CP)?
-
Upload
evangeline-byrd -
Category
Documents
-
view
24 -
download
0
description
Transcript of SIX QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED WHAT IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (CP)?
-
Soc 695 Family Violence Research In World Perspective Murray A. Straus
SPANKING BY PARENTS: THE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE AND ITS EFFECTS ON CHILDREN
SIX QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED
WHAT IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (CP)? HOW PREVALENT IS CP BY PARENTS IN AROUND THE WORLD? ARE CHILDREN WHO ARE SPANKED REALLY HARMED? IS CP SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO HAVE WELL-BEHAVED CHILDREN? WHAT ARE THE TRENDS IN USE OF CP? WHAT WOULD A WORLD WITHOUT CP BE LIKE?
-
Question 1: WHAT IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (CP)? A. USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE B. WITH THE INTENTION OF CAUSING BODILY PAIN C. BUT NOT INJURY D. FOR PURPOSES OF CORRECTION OR CONTROLEXAMPLESSPANK, SMACKSLAP HANDSHAKE, SHOVE, JERKGRAB OR SQUEEZE HARDTWIST EARetc.
IF C AND D ARE PRESENT: A LEGALLY PERMITTED TYPE OF PHYSICAL ATTACK
-
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN THE NORMFOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, AND STILL ISANCIENT ISRAEL: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes Proverbs 13:24"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 22;12
18th CENTURY ENGLAND: "When they turned a year old..., they were taught to fear the rod and to cry softly...." (Susanna Wesley to her son John, the founder of the Methodist Church, cited in Miller and Swanson 1958:10)
2001-2006 Next Slide
-
In rank order of national context total (VS01_1)`
PERCENT WHO AGREE A GOOD HARD SPANKING IS SOMETIMES NECESSARYALL NATIONS MEDIAN: Total = 52 % Males = 56% Females = 51% High Half Of NationsLow Half Of NationsTotal MaleFemaleTotalMaleFemaleTaiwan74.380.771.6Australia53.257.752.1Tanzania71.171.668.4Canada51.755.250.2South Africa67.661.067.2Hungary51.645.654.3Mexico66.770.865.7Iran51.657.150.0Singapore65.568.264.2Greece50.367.343.2United States60.868.956.7Lithuania48.857.644.2Germany60.163.858.5Switzerland45.252.641.6Hong Kong60.165.457.9Romania42.056.740.4South Korea59.063.556.4Japan35.145.025.4Russia58.865.354.0Guatemala33.440.024.8China58.464.754.9Malta33.345.928.8India56.359.154.8Venezuela28.340.919.3Great Britain55.062.353.6Belgium23.027.821.5New Zealand54.451.355.4Israel23.023.822.7Australia53.257.752.1Portugal20.827.716.9Canada51.755.250.2Brazil19.325.016.4
-
Question 2: How prevalent is CP
-
WORLD VISION STUDY OFCHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN 5 COUNTRIESSAMPLE 971 household with a child at home in Romania, Kenya, Ghana, Thailand, and BrazilStratified random sample. Mostly female respondents
From: World Vision (2001) Crying Out: Children And Communities Speak on Abuse and Neglect, Appendix B.%
Percent In Past Year
Romania
Kenya
Ghana
Thailand
Brazil
Iasi
Cj
CT
M
S
BS
P
Hit your child with your hand
70
74
58
64
64
66
27
21
72
Hit your child with a stick or belt
42
53
22
70
82
84
70
75
41
Document in CP83 Primordial victimization, Brazil Sept 05.ppt
TIME \@ "d-MMM-yy" 5-Feb-07, Page 1
-
US national survey, 1,000 children, Straus & Stewart, 1999Over 90% hit toddlers
More thana thirdhit infants
One out of four are still hitting at age 16THE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE
-
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN AGE 7-9, SAO PAULO, BRAZIL, 1999 (N=271)AVEZEDO1LOW SES PARENTS HIT MORE, BUT NOT MUCH MORE
Chart1
0.39850.3217
0.15130.1181
0.40130.3616
0.40050.3764
0.07890.0775
&CAzevedo1
MARIA AMELIA AZEVEDO AND VIVIANNE NORGUIRA DE AZEVEDO GUERRA, 2001 HITTING MANIA. SAO PAULO: IGLU EDITORIA
LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AREA
HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AREA
Sheet1
LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AREAHIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AREA
SPANK, SLAP39.85%32.17%
SHOVE, KICK15.13%11.81%
PULL EAR, HAIR40.13%36.16%
BELT, BRUSH40.05%37.64%
PUNCH, SOCK7.89%7.75%
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
RATES FROM INTERVIEWING A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF CHILDREN, 2007** Harris Internet Youth Survey
-
SOME OTHER CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RATES
Chile 85.7% children in public schools
54.1% children in private school
(Vargas, Lopez, Perez, Zuniga, Toro & Ciocca, 1995)
Egypt 72.9% children over 10, past year (Youssef, Attia & Kamel, 1998b)
Italy 76.8%(Bardi & Borgognini-Tarli, 2001)
India 76.4%(Hunter, Jain, Sadowski & Sanhueza, 2000)
Mexico74.9%(Frias-Armenta & McCloskey, 1998)
Jamaica *79% of mothers beat their two to five year olds with an implement
* 87% children age 11-12 ever
* 70% in the previous four weeks (N=1,172, Samms-Vaugham et al 2004)
(Sample of 75 economically deprived families, Landman, Grantham-McGregor & Desai, 1983)
-
In rank order of national context total (VS01_1)32 Nations In the International Dating Violence Study
-
CONCLUSION:CHILDREN IN MOST OF THE WORLD, ARE BROUGHT UP MORE VIOLENTLYTHAN IS GENERALLY REALIZED MORE PREVALENT 94% of toddlers spanked (USA & UK) MORE CHRONIC 3+ Times a week for toddlers MORE SEVERE28% Used a paddle, belt, etc. LONGER DURATION13 years for a third of US Children 17 years for 14% of US children
-
Question 3: ARE CHILDREN WHO ARE SPANKEDREALLY HARMED?
THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT CP: * Lowers the chances of many things all parents want for their children * Increases the risk of many serious and life-long problems
PARENTS CANT SEE WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS BECAUSE * They have no way to know what the child will be like in the future* Research can find this out because based on following children for years* Therefore: Parents have to go on the basis of research which shows the harmful side effects of spanking
LIKE SMOKERS WHO ALSO CAN'T SEE WHAT THE EFFECTS AREBoth smokers and parents can only get information on the benefits of stopping from research
-
Slows mental developmentReduces academic performance in elementary schoolIncreases anger and aggressivenessIncreases probability of DepressionLowers occupational achievement and incomeIncreases probability of violence against dating and marital partnersIncreases probability of physical abuse of a child
RESULTS FROM SOME OF THE STUDIES SHOWING THESE EFFECTS
WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWSABOUT THE EFFECTS OF SPANKING
-
GROWTH IN COGNITIVE ABILITY OF CHILDRENTWO YEARS LATER
* Not spanked: increased faster than average
CP41CHART 3 COGNITIVEAVERAGEData from the National Longitudinal Survey Of Youth. 1,510 children
Chart1
5.51.8
2.9-0.3
1-1.6
0-0.8
&LCP51R1 May 00
AGE 2-4
AGE 5-9
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN TWO SAMPLE WEEKS
CHANGE IN SCORE 1986-90
F
Sheet1
NONEONCETWICE3+
AGE 2-45.52.910
AGE 5-91.8-0.3-1.6-0.8
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
* ADJUSTED FOR TIME-1 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, COGNITIVE STIMULATION AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT BY THE MOTHER, CHILD GENDER, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. CP67-1 ANTISOCIALCHANGEIN ANTI-SOCIALBEHAVIORSPANKEDThe more spanking the more antisocial behavior two years later
NOT SPANKEDAntisocial behavior measured two years later decreased
Chart1
-3.69-3.73
0.295.71
2.337.43
15.8611.78
EURO-AMER.
MINORITY
TIMES SPANKED IN PREVIOUS WEEK
*
FIGURE 1. CHANGE IN ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR FROM 1988 TO 1990 BY SPANKING IN 1988(CHILDREN 6-9) )
Sheet1
NONEONCETWICETHREE +
EURO-AMER.-3.690.292.3315.86
MINORITY-3.735.717.4311.78
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
CHILDREN IN SIX DIVERSE NATIONS
THE MORE CORPORAL PUNISHMENTTHE MORE:
MORE AGGRESSION
MORE ANXIETY
Lansford, J. E. et al (2005). Physical Discipline and Childrens Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a Moderator. Child Development.
-
THE MORE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, THE GREATER THE PROBABILITY OF PHYSICALLY ABUSING A CHILDOF PARENTBY PARENT
-
THESE ARE ALL RISK FACTORS,NOT ONE-TO-ONE LINKS A CONDITION WHICH INCREASES THE PROBABILITY OF A DISEASE OR PROBLEM
EXAMPLES:
SMOKING AND DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE (33% chance of death from a smoking related disease which means that 64% do not) FREQUENT SPANKING AND DELINQUENCY(24% chance - 5 fold increase, but 76% do not become delinquent) BINGE DRINKING AND WIFE BEATING(19% chance - 3 fold increase, but 81% of binge drinkers do not beat their wives)
-
HOURSTOREPET-ITIONSHORT RUN EFFECTIVE-NESS:CP WORKS BUT NO BETTER THAN OTHER METHODS Question 4.IS CP NECESSARY TO HAVE WELL-BEHAVED CHILDREN?
Chart1
5.45
5.78
5.92
4.3
6.44
9.5
2,853 INSTANCES OF DISOBEDIANCE, 785 INSTANCES OF FIGHTINGCP67-3 LARZELERE (FROM LARZELERE & MIRANDA, TABLES 2 & 3)
FIGHTS AGAIN
TYPE OF DISCIPLINE
FIGURE 3. HOURS TO REPITITON OF MISBEHAVIOR BY 40 CHILDREN AGE 2-3
Sheet1
CORPORAL PUNISH ONLYCORPORAL PUNISH + REASONINGNON-CORPORAL PUNISHREASONING ONLYREASONING + FORCED COMPLINACEREASONING + NON-CORPORAL PUNISH
DISOBEYS AGAIN2.893.072.492.282.392.99
FIGHTS AGAIN5.455.785.924.36.449.5
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
LONG-RUN EFFECTIVENESS:CP BOOMERANGS
-
* ADJUSTED FOR TIME-1 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, COGNITIVE STIMULATION AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT BY THE MOTHER, CHILD GENDER, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. CP67-1 ANTISOCIALCHANGEIN ANTISOCIALBEHAVIORNOT SPANKED: BEHAVIOR IMPROVEDSPANKED: BEHAVIOR GOT WORSE
Chart1
-3.69-3.73
0.295.71
2.337.43
15.8611.78
EURO-AMER.
MINORITY
TIMES SPANKED IN PREVIOUS WEEK
*
FIGURE 1. CHANGE IN ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR FROM 1988 TO 1990 BY SPANKING IN 1988(CHILDREN 6-9) )
Sheet1
NONEONCETWICETHREE +
EURO-AMER.-3.690.292.3315.86
MINORITY-3.735.717.4311.78
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
TWO REASONS WHY CP MAKES THINGS WORSE IN THE LONG RUN
1. LESS WELL DEVELOPED CONSCIENCE
-
2. WEAKENS BOND TO PARENTNONE6 +
-
FIG A. CLOSENESS OF CHILD TO MOTHERBY CORPORAL PUNISHMENT(713 CHILDREN AGE 5-18 IN TWO MINNESTA CITIES)
*ADJUSTED FOR AGE, GENDER OF CHILD, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, CP40A
-
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIV 2D.doc SOME OTHER REASONS LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS OF CP IS LOW
* FROM SCHOOL AGE ON -- OUT OF SIGHT MOST OF THE TIME
* CHILDREN GET "TOO BIG" THEN WHAT?
* LESS OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN HOW TO GET NEEDS FILLED BY
EXPLAINING
NEGOTIATING
CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES
COMPROMISE
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\~WRO0000.doc
-
(USA)Question 5: WHAT ARE THE TRENDS IN USE OF CP?
-
THE MOST CHANGE HAS BEEN IN SWEDEN
-
UNITED NATIONSSECOND WORLD SUMMIT ON CHILDREN
All countries to adopt legislation, policies and programmes to protect children from all forms of violence, whether at home, in school or in the community: and protect children from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including corporal punishment.
-
HITTING CHILDREN BANNED IN THESE COUNTRIESAs of 2006 15 BY STATUTE AustriaBulgariaCroatia Cyprus Denmark Finland Germany Hungary Iceland Israel Latvia Norway Romania Sweden UkraineBY HIGH COURT RULING: Israel, Italy
Steps to implement vary from almost none to very extensive
-
QUESTION 6: WHAT THE WORLD MIGHT BE LIKE IF ADULTS STOPPED SPANKING? THE EXAMPLE OF SWEDEN(Durrant, 1998) CP in schools banned in 1928; CP by parents banned in 1979 (but no criminal penalties)
VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN SINCE 1979 BANPublic approval of CP declined to near zeroUse of CP declined sharply but continuesChild physical abuse has not increased (Child abuse deaths remain lowest in the world)Reports of CP increased as a result of intervention effortYOUTH CRIME AND PROBLEMS SINCE 1979 BAN:Crime rates decreasedAlcohol and drug use decreasedSuicide decreasedReports of assault by youth increased reflects redefinition of bullying as assault and zero tolerance
-
THESE ARE ALL RISK FACTORS,NOT ONE-TO-ONE LINKS A CONDITION WHICH INCREASES THE PROBABILITY OF A DISEASE OR PROBLEM
EXAMPLES:
SMOKING AND DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE (33% chance of death from a smoking related disease which means that 64% do not) FREQUENT SPANKING AND DELINQUENCY(24% chance - 5 fold increase, but 76% do not become delinquent) BINGE DRINKING AND WIFE BEATING(19% chance - 3 fold increase, but 81% of binge drinkers do not beat their wives)
-
Chart 5-4.1 Comparison of the Effect of Corporal PunishmentWith Effects From Other Domains* Partial correlation. See Appendix 5 for explanation, Other effect sizes are from Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56(6/7), 477-489.
-
WHY ENDING CP CAN BE A MAJOR BENEFIT FOR CHILDREN AND SOCIETY
-
QUESTION 6 AGAIN: WHAT WOULD THE WORLD BE LIKE IF ADULTS STOPPED SPANKING?
FOR PARENTS * LESS HASSLE * LESS BETTER BEHAVED CHILDREN
FOR CHILDREN* LESS RISK OF PHYSICAL ABUSE* LESS DELINQUENCY
FOR THE NEXT GENERATION* LESS STREET VIOLENCE* LESS DEPRESSION AND SUICIDE* LESS WIFE BEATING* HIGHER ECONOMIC ACHIEVMENT
A LESS VIOLENT, HEALTHIER, WEALTHIER, AND WISER WORLD* ENHANCED MENTAL ABILITY AND SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT
-
END
-
A FEW REFERENCES
Giles-Sims, J., Straus, M. A., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). Child, maternal and family characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations, 44(2), 170-176.
Greven, P. (1990). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the psychological impact of physical abuse. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579.
Simons, R. L., Lin, K.-H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the Family of origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(2), 467-478.
Straus, M. A. (1995). Corporal punishment of children and depression and suicide in adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and Punishment in Long Term Perspective. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Straus, M. A. (2005). Children should never, ever, be spanked no matter what the circumstances. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current Controversies about Family Violence (2nd ed., pp. chapter 9). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Straus, M. A. (2007 in press). The primordial violence: Corporal punishment by parents, cognitive development, and crime. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of pediatric and adolescent medicine, 151(August), 761-767.
-
FOR EVIDENCE ON ALL THESE POINTS AND MANY OTHERS see* This book* Papers on my website (1st slide)* References on last slide
* ALSO Forthcoming book
-
I. SPANKING -- THE VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE 1. The Conspiracy of Silence 2. Everyone Does It, But Less Now 3. Hitting Adolescents 4. Who Spanks the Most?II. THE PRICE OF VIRTUE 5. Depression and Suicide 6. Physical Abuse 7. Violence and Crime 8. The Fusion of Sex and Violence 9. Alienation and Reduced IncomeIll. THE FUTURE 10. Ten Myths that Perpetuate Corporal Punishment I I. Social Evolution and Corporal Punishment 12. The Benefits of Never Spanking: New and More Definitive Evidence
Transaction Publishers 390 Campus Drive Somerset, NJ 08873 Toll free-US only 888-999-6778 or 732-445-1245 Fax. 732-748-9801 www.transactionpub.com
In UK and Europe: Transaction Publishers (UK) C/O EDS 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel. +44 (0)20 7 240 0856 Fax. +44 (0)20 7 379 0609
2nd Edition, 2001
-
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, In Press 2007. www.altamirapress.com
THE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE:
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BY PARENTS, COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT,
AND CRIME
Murray A. Straus and Rose A. Medeiros
University of New Hampshire [email protected]
Part I. SOCIAL CAUSES AND CONTEXT
1-1Prevalence, Chronicity, And Severity of Corporal Punishmnt In The USA
1-2 Corporal Punishment In The Lives Of University Students In 16 Countries
1-3 There Was An Old Woman Who Lived In A Shoe What Did She Do?
1-4Violent Attitudes and Cultural Norms Underling Corporal Punishment
Part II. CHILD BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS
2-1Spanking To Control Antisocial Behavior - The Boomerang Effect
2-2The Effects of Impulsive Spanking and Never Spanking
2-3 Corporal Punishment, the Child-To-Mother Bond, And Delinquency
2-4Corporal Punishment And Risky Sex
PART III. HUMAN CAPITAL
3-1Slowing Of Cognitive Development
3-2 Lower Educational Achievement Test Scores
3-3Reduced Chances of College Graduation
-
ChapterTHE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE (CONTINUED)
Part IV. ADULT VIOLENCE AND OTHER CRIME
4-1 Why Corporal Punishment Is Linked To Physically Assaulting A Spouse
4-2 Corporal Punishment and Crime in Ethnic Group Context
4-3Corporal Punishment And Violence Against Dating Partners Worldwide
4-4Spanking and Crime in Adulthood By High Risk Children
Part V. SOCIAL CHANGE AND TRENDS
5-1The Decline in Public Support Of Spanking
5-2 Why Everyone Spanks Toddlers And What To Do About It
5-3 Corporal Punishment And Societal Violence
5-4 A World Without Spanking
-
WHY PAY ATTENTION TO SPANKING?MOST SPANKING IS DONE BY LOVING PARENTS TO CORRECT AND TRAIN CHILDRENTHE HARMFUL EFFECTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL CHILD ARE SMALL COMPARED TO THE EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL ABUSEBUTIT VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AS DEFINED IN THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON CHILDRENS RIGHTSA VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN ARE SPANKEDCHILDREN ARE TYPICALLY HIT FOR MANY YEARS IN THE USA, ON AVERAGE UNTIL THEY ARE ABOUT 12 YEARS OLD, I.E. FOR ABOUT 12 YEARSTHE EFFECT ON THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN IS VERY LARGE GREATER THAN THE HARMFUL EFFECT OF PHYSICAL ABUSE
-
Giles-Sims, Jean., Murray A. Straus, and David B. Sugarman. 1995. "Child, maternal and family characteristics associated with spanking." Family Relations 44:170-176.%2.83.63.33.6RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES IN SPANKING CHILDREN 3-5Percent Who Spanked in Past WeekAverage Number Of Times per Week
-
CHINESE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RATES
Survey by the Guangdong Provincial Women's Federation 54% of university and middle-school students experienced corporal punishment 80% of parents and teachers believe corporal punishment has benefits
Survey by the University of Hong Kong (2003-04) 44% of parents had beaten their children to "straighten" them up.
Joy Lu Spare the rod and spoil the child? China Daily 05/27/2006 page 3 (downloaded from internet)
-
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\TWO CANADIAN STUDIES.DOC
TWO CANADIAN STUDIES
ONTARIO HEALTH SURVEY
83% IN CHILDHOOD
RANDOM SAMPLE OF
PERSONS AGE 15-44
RANDOM SAMPLE OF TORONTO
75% IN PAST YEAR
MOTHERS WITH CHILD
AGE 3 TO 17 AT HOME
Lenton, Rhonda L. 1990. Techniques of child discipline and abuse by parents. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology 27:157-185.
MacMillan, Harriet L., Michael H. Boyle, Maria Y-Y. Wong, Eric K. Duku, Jan E. Fleming, and Christine A. Walsh. 1999. Slapping, spanking and lifetime psychiatric disorder in a community sample of Ontario residents. Canadian Medical Association Journal 161:805-809.
-
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\Tribal Society Rates.doc
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN TRIBAL SOCIETIES
77% USED CP
ANTHROPOLOGISTS REPORTS ON 186 SOCIETIES (BARRY, ET AL, 1980)
Document in Primordial victimization, Brazil Sept 05.ppt
TIME \@ "d-MMM-yy" 12-Aug-06, Page 1
-
C:\MyDocuments\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTS\Crime,Violence\ADDED RISK-CRIME.d oc
HOW MUCH COULD ENDING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT REDUCE CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION?
CORPORAL
PUNISHMENT
HIGHNONECHANGE
A. JUVENILE VICTIMS
REPEATEDLY AND SEVERELY ATTACKED BY A 40%18%55% LESS
SIBLING IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS (p.102)
NUMBER OF TIMES HIT BY CHILDREN
4.3
2.151% LESS
IN SCHOOL IN TWO WEEK PERIOD (MEAN)
(Strasbourg et al 1994)
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN PAST 12 MONTHS15%3%80% LESS (p.108)
B. ADULT VICTIMS
SPOUSES HIT IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS
25%8%68% LESS
(p.104)
PHYSICALLY ABUSED CHILDREN
24%8%67% LESS
12 MONTHS (i.e. went beyond legal
corporal punishment) (p.94)
CONVICTIONF FOR AN INDEX CRIME
33%14%58% LESS
Sons of non-criminal fathers. Cambride-Somerville
Youth Study (McCord, 1991)
NOTE: PAGE REFERENCES ARE TO MURRAY A. STRAUS, BEATING THE DEVIL OUT OF THEM: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN AMERICAN FAMILIES (1994) UNLESS A DIFFERENT AUTHOR IS INDICATED.
CP\CHARTS\EFFECTS\AD-RS-CR.OV
-
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIVE SUMMARY.DOC
EFFECTIVENESS OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
COMPARED TO NON-CORPRAL DISCIPLINE
AVERAGE EFFECTIVNESS
TIME SPAN
CORP PUN
NON-CP
IMMEDIATE
HIGH
HIGH
SHORT TERM (HOURS, DAYS)LOW
LOW
LONG TERM (MONTHS, YEARS)MAKES
HIGH
WORSE
SIDE EFFECTS
HARMFULBENIFICAL
-
The terrible twos
-
%
-
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\INTERNATIONAL RATES 2.doc
B. SOME OTHER COUNTRIES
NATION
& REF.
SAMPLE
& N
CHILD
AGE
%
HIT
TIME
MEAN
TIMES
CANADA
MACMILLAN ET AL, 1999
ONTARIO
RANDOM SAMPLE
RECALL OF CHILDHOOD
84%
EVER
--
CANADA
LENTON, 1990
TORONTO
RANDOM
SAMPLE
Age 3 - 17
75%
YEAR
--
ENGLAND
NEWSON & NEWSON, 1963
NOTTINGHAM RANDOM SAMPLE
N=709
INFANTS
Age 4
62%
97%
YEAR
YEAR
75% AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK
ENGLAND
NOBES & SMITH,
1997
N=99
Age 1 11
Age 4
80%
52%
YEAR
WEEK
SWEDEN
STATTIN ET ALL, 1995
STOCKHOLM
BIRTH COHORT
1955-58
Age 3
94%
YEAR
33% AT LEAST DAILY
\\Mstraus\c\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\INTERNATIONAL RATES.doc
TIME \@ "d-MMM-yy" 25-Aug-06, Page 1
-
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIV 2D.doc WHY LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS IS LOW
* NOT AS EFFECTIVE IN DEVELOPING CONSCIENCE (NEXT SLIDE)
Need to be good if mommy or daddy are watching or will know, not on basis of what is right and wrong
* UNDERCUTS BOND TO PARENT (NEXT SLIDE)
* FROM SCHOOL AGE ON -- OUT OF SIGHT MOST OF THE TIME
* CHILDREN GET "TOO BIG" THEN WHAT?
* LESS OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN HOW TO GET NEEDS FILLED BY
EXPLAINING
NEGOTIATING
CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES
COMPROMISE
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\~WRO0000.doc
-
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIV 2A.doc Question 4. IS CP SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO HAVE WELL-BEHAVED CHILDREN?
ANSWER DEPENDS ON HOW EFFECTIVE CP IS IN CORRECTING MISBEHAVIOR