Spanking Ban

[Pnt]

I'm sure you've heard of it if you're an American who watches the news. I can't say that I know too much about the law other than it's being introduced as a bill in California, and it would make it a criminal offense with up to one year imprisonment to spank a child four years or younger.


Personally, I think the government has no place to be getting involved here. The main support is coming from politicians who say that spanking is the same as beating a child and there are better ways to discipline a kid other than spanking. I hold my right to raise my children (whenever that may be) how I see fit very high, and I won't put up with lawmakers telling me that I can't reasonably spank my kid. My parents spanked me, and I'll tell you, sometimes I couldn't sit for hours at a time. I learned my lessons pretty quick, though, and honestly, I'm glad they did spank me when I was younger. Sometimes I think society's going soft, and I see no reason for this issue to become a law. In my opinion, this just isn't the government's place.

[Dare]

The bill proposes making it illegal to spank children under the age of 3 - basically, you wouldn't be able to spank a 1-2 year old.
It's also not a national bill...the law would just apply to California (for those who were confused).

Speaking as a child of someone who used excessive spanking to the point of where it could no longer be considered standard "discipline", I'm really not sure where I stand on this. It's difficult not to give in to bias and start ranting about child abusers and what they consider to be "acceptable" parenting measures. (mind you, I don't believe all spankers are child abusers, but I do believe it can be a doorway/indicator behavior of the like)

I don't really consider spanking to be an effective discipline tool. It works very well for instant-gratification short-term good behavior, but I'm not so sure in the long run. It certainly didn't teach me anything other than how to be really sneaky.

Buuuuut, this law...I don't think it would really work, nor do I think it'll pass. In theory, giving your kid a light swat on the butt would land people in jail or a $1000 fine. That's ludicrous.
Wouldn't they benefit better from some kind of mandatory parental workshop? Something that helps parents explore alternate avenues of discipline?

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Wicked

Speaking as a child of someone who used excessive spanking to the point of where it could no longer be considered standard "discipline", I'm really not sure where I stand on this. It's difficult not to give in to bias.

I don't really consider spanking to be an effective discipline tool. It works very well for instant-gratification short-term good behavior, but I'm not so sure in the long run. It certainly didn't teach me anything other than how to be really sneaky.


I read somewhere that spanking a child usually yields counter-productive results later in the childs life. I believe the text I read stated that children who are spanked as younger children usually have a tendancy to be more violent than children who are not.

[Pnt]

Oh, don't get me wrong wicked, I think there's a very broad distinction between spanking and beating, the latter of which I don't condone. But as for a "Light swat on the butt," I personally think that's an important part of growing up to be a mature person, at least for some people.

[Dyani]

It depends on the childs character whether or not the child will react badly to spanking. I was spanked and I'm fine... ( a subject not to be debated ta much :p)

It is DEFINATLY not the governments place to tell you that sort of thing. All it does is try to make up for the few cases of child abuse that occur, and beating isn't the worse you can do to a child for one thing. Think it was debated in England at some point but don't know. Parental classes are better.

[SpiritWolf77]

I support this ban. A parent should NOT hit their child as a method of punishment. Spanking is tantamount to child abuse.

My mother struck me ONCE in my entire life...she slapped my hand when I was about to stick my fingers in an electrical outlet. That was justified. She wanted to teach me that doing something like that would be painful, without risking me acutally doing it and potentially killing myself.

But if a parent strikes a child for just being "bad' (not eating their dinner, not going to bed on time, etc.) then that is cruel, and that is child abuse. Physical discipline is not necessary in teaching a child to behave. My parents never spanked me and I grew up to be a very well-behaved child. Spanking a child only teaches them that violence is an acceptable method of punishment and instruction.

[Dyani]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Spanking a child only teaches them that violence is an acceptable method of punishment and instruction.

I understand your view totally but this I'd like to debate. Doesn't it depend more on the developing character of a child whether they are smacked or not? Children that are smacked may either accept it as a punishment, begin to think that violence is the only way in this society, store up the anger they feel and often with murderous consequences (as in the example of Perry Smith, murderer of the Clutters in Capote's In Cold Bloo ) or just ignore it. Children that are not smacked may develope fine, end up wanting to commit violence, be spoilt or allowed to get away with things.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Dyani
I understand your view totally but this I'd like to debate. Doesn't it depend more on the developing character of a child whether they are smacked or not? Children that are smacked may either accept it as a punishment, begin to think that violence is the only way in this society, store up the anger they feel and often with murderous consequences (as in the example of Perry Smith, murderer of the Clutters in Capote's In Cold Bloo ) or just ignore it. Children that are not smacked may develope fine, end up wanting to commit violence, be spoilt or allowed to get away with things.

The point is, it is possible to discipline children without causing them physical harm. And I don't consider causing children physical harm as a method of discipline to be morally right. Since it is perfectly possibl to discipline any child without hitting them, why cause them harm and risk emotional and physical repercussions?

[Dyani]

Although its good method with good moral standings, it won't work with some children. They could still grow up to be psychopathic or spoilt. Any other form of punishment would not have worked for me for example. Getting hit is more of a deterrant than a lecture for a majority of children. Anyway, if a child can get away with, it then they would probably try to.
I was both yelled at and smacked. Smacking worked for me, because when my parents used to get angry and didn't hit me, they'd say bad things. My low self confidence is based in what they have said. I prefer the smacking because its a short term pain rather than a longer term effect.

Would you tell off your child?

[Darkslash]

There's no point to this law -- there are already child abuse laws on the books that define clearly what can and cannot be considered abuse, with appropriate authority given to the executive for enforcement.

Until a parent's actions fit the definition of abuse as decided by a jury/judge, it shouldn't be touched by government. A parent may find spanking repulsive, and choose not to do so. Their decision should not be law.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
The point is, it is possible to discipline children without causing them physical harm. And I don't consider causing children physical harm as a method of discipline to be morally right. Since it is perfectly possibl to discipline any child without hitting them, why cause them harm and risk emotional and physical repercussions?

Being realistic though, spanking a kid causes no physical harm. With a normal spank, there's no mark, no scar, no damage to muscle structure, no bruising, and usually even no redness of the skin. A quick slap on the butt as one of those last resort types of punishments isn't really that big of a deal, and you'd be surprised how quickly it got me in line. Truth be told, I was spanked quite frequently when I was a kid. The result? Two core values of mine are respect for an individual, even when you don't like them, and the non-violent resoultion of issues (and I'm a pacifist). Spanking didn't, in my case, make me violent at all, and honestly, I doubt there would have been any other punishment that'd work for me the vast majority of the time.

And I know this is gonna be unpopular, but I think people need a certain level of physical harm as a kid. Fallng of a merry go round, toppling their bike, scraping their knee, and getting spanked are all important, I think. There's a reason kids heal faster, and I think it helps people turn into well-rounded adults to not be coddled and protected from any physical harm as kids. Makes them turn into soft, wishy-washy adults if you ask me. Reminds me of when I was ten. During the winter, some friends and I went quad riding in the snow with a sled tied to the back of the ATV. I learned a good lesson that day -- mommy's not always going to be there to get my butt out of trouble when I do something stupid. Getting spanked, I learned that mommy's not always going to be cookies and stories.

Regardless of whether you agree with spanking or not, though, I see no reason for the government to be stepping in on this one. Raising a child is not, in any way, shape or form, a responsibility or right of the community. That right rests solely upon the parents and, if the parents fail to do their duties to a vast degree, a government official. Because reasonable spanking does not cause any permanent physical harm or lasting emotional damage with the vast majority of kids, the government loses any reason to step in. Sure, people may have gone through life not being spanked and maybe they turned out just fine, but other people are different. As I said before, I got spanked, and I full-heartedly believe that if I didn't, I would have turned out to be quite a different person (and not for the better). I would consider it a crime to not have spanked. There may also be better ways to discipline some children, but personally, I believe in the right to be wrong sometimes, and frankly, I don't forsee a kid getting swatted on the butt a few times having any lasting negative effects.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
What my dad did to me didn't teach me respect; rather it taught me how to hate someone. I don't respect everyone either, nor do most people respect me. That's the way of the world. Truth be told - it would be very difficult to respect every single person in the world, no matter what they did. I'm not hiding the fact that if someone killed someone I really cared about, I would want to make them hurt a lot. I'm sure if someone raped and killed people you cared about, then you would want them to hurt too.

If people make me angry, depressed, annoyed, e.t.c... I probably won't like or respect them as much as someone who treats me well, cares about me, and so on. Of course there are exceptions, but that's usually just if I get obsessed with being nice to someone who is horrible to me. Ahhh, the wonderful intricacies of OCD.

And that has what to do with spanking? I can only live by my life experiences, and as of right now, I've not met a person who doesn't deserve a even the most basal level of respect. I'm sorry to hear that your dad did something that made you hate him or someone else, but unless you mean he reasonably spanked you, I don't see how that applies.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
He hurt me, just as other parents who hit their children hurt their kids. When I was four or five he just gave me 'six of the best' or so he called it. Whacked my *** six times. Ouch. But then it got worse. There's nothing at all to stop it getting worse with other kids too with their parents.

And, my response was a response to yours. You said being hit made you respect people, and not want to hit anyone else. I was providing my opinion on that, through my personal experience. \

And, as Darkslash said earlier, there's already child abuse laws in place in the US. I didn't say that being hit made me respect people, being hit normally implies intent to cause harm. I said being spanked. Spanking and child abuse are two different things. I completely support the enforcement of child abuse laws. Personally, I think the government should start enforcing the laws in place before making new ones. In the US, if your father hit you to cause harm, you'd in theory be guaranteed protection from such abuse by the government.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
You're probably guaranteed protection here too, but in reality it doesn't happen, or there are many drawbacks associated with it.

Also, spanking is a type of being hit. Someone else is hitting your body with their hand.

As I said before, saying that you got hit by your parents normally implies that your parents were beating, punching, or otherwise harming you. I'm aware that spanking can be defined as hitting, but to say "Hit" implies the intent to harm. That's why there's a differentiation made between the two acts.

I don't see how a spanking ban would help guarantee a child protection if the original child abuse law wasn't enforced well. To me, people should be pressing for better enforcement, not new laws.

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by Wicked
The bill proposes making it illegal to spank children under the age of 3 - basically, you wouldn't be able to spank a 1-2 year old.
That makes sense and I agree with that. Children under the age of 3 have little or no concept of right or wrong, so to spank a child as young as 2 would be wrong since the child wouldn't know that what it was doing was wrong. However after the age of 3, I have seen for myself that most children of around 5 or 6 start doing things that they know is wrong, and so spanking would do them good.

I agree with Pnt, I got spanked quite a lot, I still say my Dad enjoyed it but that's going off on a tangent. I remember doing bad things, and getting spanked for them, that made me not do it again for fear of getting spanked again. It sounds like a form of torment to make a child's mind worry about being spanked for doing naughty things, but what you need to remember is that most children need discipline. Going back, if I'd have only been told off for doing those things, the chances are I'd have done them again because I'd have thought "oh, he only told me off, that's not so bad" instead of thinking "ok, better not do that again, don't wanna be spanked". That's what makes the difference for me, those who think that light spankings are wrong are probably not gonna be good parents, since they won't be tough enough on their kids, and as a result, they'll be the ones going on Supernanny because little Jonny is out of control and mummy and daddy can't cope with it.

I also agree with Pnt about the distinction between a spank and a proper hit. I was never "hit", only spanked, and that's what made the difference. If I'd have been properly punched and stuff, I might have gotten a complex or something. If parents are hitting their children, then action should be taken against them for child abuse as mentioned before. Spanking, however is not child abuse, I don't care about the "his/her hand spanked me, that's a hit", you need to look at the bigger picture. The child is gonna learn respect and discipline from being "taught" not to do bad things. I might not be the most obedient of people, but I do at least have respect for other people, who knows? Maybe if I'd have not been spanked I'd have turned into someone else, who wasn't as respectful.

[Kovu The Lion]

Why would you want to hit a child that's below the age of 4?

That could easily kill them aye? Lol.

[Kovu The Lion]

YOU FOOL THERES NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING XDDD

God I hated it when teachers didn't believe me. -_-

Meh.

[Dyani]

Its alright KTL, your medication is here now :hugs: thats it... into the jacket, its for your own good. :bleen:

[Darkslash]

Quote from STL:

You're probably guaranteed protection here too, but in reality it doesn't happen, or there are many drawbacks associated with it.
Then how, "in reality," will a spanking law/ban be enforced?

[Dyani]

The same way to make sure you don't abuse your fish... basically raid your house every now and then I guess. (The idea to protect your goldish was actually discussed at one point here... Our brains are shrinking, I swear..)

[Kalahari]

When I first read this I thought it was "speaking ban". LOL.
I think spanking depends on the child. But then there is really going to be no way they can enforce it if it happens inside the home.

[Kovu The Lion]

To be honest, I think communtiies going over, when I was young and growing up, if we said "no" or "yes" we got beat, if we put arms on the table, we got beat, if we talked back, we got beat, Look at me now, Respectful to anyone IRL, and know a lot tbh.

now a days kids run around doing whatever the hell they want and no one inforces them, later on that will affect them in life.

Kovu

[Darkslash]

At least though in cases where parents are found to be doing these sorts of things to their children, action could be taken if the law(s) was/were brought in.
OK, to clarify: How, since spanking, as pnt has pointed out, when done correctly leaves no marks, will one ever prove that it was done? Court system backlog major.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If someone else notices what is going on, then it can easily be reported. It's not always both parents who are like that either. Sometimes just one parent is like that. The other one might be nicer and have the decency to report them for breaking the law (and hurting the child).

Wouldn't this apply then to current child abuse laws?

[Kovu The Lion]

*spanks simba for thinking that and not applying it or something, then gets a lawsuit*

[ThiagoPE]

Some persons spanks childrens just because them done a thing everything a children do, like get a thing they not know... them can?t do that and i thibnk it is anb abuse of the childrens

Even for older childrens I prefer the "super nanny" methods than any kind of violence. Nanny use to say that violence is the last of last resource if no education method not work and sure you can?t never abuse of it.

[Shadow]

iv never bin spanked in my whole life never ever never ever!

and in return i love my parents work hard in school and behave so is my fellow older sisters none of us has ever got in trubble with the law nore tried anything bad " Like drugs" we dont smoke our drink alchol exsept on parties

i support this...and no offance pnt but by spanking your kids, your kids will do the same when they get kids and it goes on and on and will not stop until someone in the famely stops with it.....


beating a defence less poor child "spanking " whatever is not the selution...this was the kind of punishments i got when i was little...


my weekly "candy money" was taken away... i had to stay on my room

and if id made something wrong but came out with it for them they wouldent be angry at me even though they got dissapointed but they got proud aswel..

i remember being little and foolish and one day i stole my neingbers mini game of ninja turtorels and when dad asked me " whered you get that?"

i didnt lie to him and said i got it from the neingur older kid dad didnt get furios but mad alright after telling me harsh the diffrence betwine right and wrong and that taking other folks stuff is wrong he forced me to leave it back to the neibgur personaly...that was so horrebul for me becuse i was so ashamed and emberesd iv never taken anything sense that day that dusent belong to me...


i remember an other time when i was little 10-13 our something when we lived in a farm we had this repear building and barn me and a friend threw rocks at the windows "becuse they where already broken badly was the excuse "

anyhow when dad asked me if i knew anything abut it i first said no...dad looked at a cupple of days later he asked me again becuse he didnt belive me and for me to lie to my own father is a death sentence...it toke 5 seconds for me to confess...becuse i couldent lie to my fathers eyes and i emidetly started crying and saying am sorry...

dad didnt answer he looked away...then i saw a tear running down his eye and he said that he felt so horrebul and sad becuse he couldent trust his own son....

this was the greatest punishment off all the things i could get he did strip away all my money for the rest of the summer vacation and made me pay the windows but i didnt care abut the money all i wanted to do was for dad to trust me again to 100% i felt so guiltly sad and made everything in my power to make dad trust me again...it toke quite some time and that was the worst time of my life i tell you.

dad doupted on me alot and didnt trust me most of the time....its really ones of the worst things on my life....

having so big trust for my father and he for me and for that being riped away...wow...it was the worst punishment iv ever got...

but i built it up years ago again but wow..


there are alot of stuff you can do to your kid dad never smacked me our spanked me but he gave me a lession i will never forget...

[Pnt]

Now, for the people who think that spanking should be banned, please humor me for a second. Do you feel it's your right to decide how someone else will raise their children? Why do you feel that's your business to be getting involved in their child rearing decisions? If you disagree with spanking your child, why do you have to force everyone else to follow what you consider to be right? Assuming the child is not being beaten, upon what ground do you have to stand to justify taking away the right to raise a child from the parents and placing it into the hands of a community?

I've always thought that this country was based upon an emphasis on free will over social control. What works for some people doesn't for others, thus there must be allowed diversity and free will. To surrender that free will conscripts ourselves to a collective mindset known as a dystopia and invites the rape of our individuality. I think that society making decisions on how a parent reasonably disciplines their child definitely falls within this category. There are fewer basic, natural, God-given rights than raising our children as we see fit, and because spanking does not cause reasonable physical or emotional damage, I see no reason for this law to be effectively limiting the free will of an individual to do just that: raise their child.

This whole "I don't agree with it, so I won't let anyone do it" business is leading society down a dangerous path to a loss of individuality. I personally feel it is wrong for people to hate homosexual people solely because those people are homosexual. I would not under any circumstance, however, take the right of a parent to raise their child with those ideals away from the parent. It is their right to make decisions such as those, just as it is the right of a parent to teach their children tolerance and respect. Likewise, I would not take the right of a parent to reasonably discipline their child in a way that they see fit solely because I wasn't raised like that myself.

[Shadow]

hey dont post a thread if your not willing to take that folks dont think the same as you i just stated what i thought was right and i stick to that

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Pnt
Being realistic though, spanking a kid causes no physical harm. With a normal spank, there's no mark, no scar, no damage to muscle structure, no bruising, and usually even no redness of the skin. A quick slap on the butt as one of those last resort types of punishments isn't really that big of a deal, and you'd be surprised how quickly it got me in line. Truth be told, I was spanked quite frequently when I was a kid. The result? Two core values of mine are respect for an individual, even when you don't like them, and the non-violent resoultion of issues (and I'm a pacifist). Spanking didn't, in my case, make me violent at all, and honestly, I doubt there would have been any other punishment that'd work for me the vast majority of the time.

It's still physical harm even if there is no lasting physical damage. It can cause emotional damage. A parent is someone who protects and cares for their child. How could it affect the child if the parent is also seen as one who causes physical pain?

And you say you feel a kid needs to experience some physical harm as a child. Sure, kids need to learn what activities are and are not dangerous. I scraped my knee plenty of times as a kid doing various activities. I learned how to deal with pain and how to be careful. But there is a difference between a child hurting themselves as the result of an accident and a child being deliberately hurt by their own parent.

I think the bottom line is that despite the fact that some children can be taught via spanking without any ill consequences, the fact that it does have severe consequences for some, the fact that for some parents, it becomes child abuse, and the fact that it is not necessary, means it's probably better banned than allowed.

[Dyani]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
I think the bottom line is that despite the fact that some children can be taught via spanking without any ill consequences, the fact that it does have severe consequences for some, the fact that for some parents, it becomes child abuse, and the fact that it is not necessary, means it's probably better banned than allowed.

In all honesty, since when does banning anything stop it happening? Whats banned at the moment? Drugs, prostitution, theft, child abuse, underage drinking, murder, paedophilia, gambling, vandalism, trespassing, animal-human sex, self-mutilation, stabbing mormons, copyright infringement, bashing Jews, whipping Africans, fighting, hate rape, sexual harassment, jumping the borders, pushing cripples downstairs, eating cats, bribing cops, downloading music, pistol-whipping old ladies, masturbation in public, setting your boss on fire, hijacking a short bus, driving without a licence, fishing without a licence, hunting without a licence, disturbing the peace, inpersonating a ferderal agent, spitting on the sidewalk, poisoning a salad bar, slander, terrosim, public intoxication, speeding and telling a quadrupedic child that his family are going straight to hell if he doesn't solve the rubix cube in less than two and a half minutes.


Heck, you know... most of these things happen none the less and half the time they get away with it. Since when will putting No Spanking in that list help stop it?


PS If you know where I got that list from then you are the 1337357 of the 1337... and have a brain.

[Hanshilo]

There is a difference between abuse, and punishment for behavoiur...

Smacking a child for bad behavoiur is not a crime, but telling that child it has done wrong, or that something is dangerous and that the smack instantly tells it that, whatever it was gonna touch was nasty or dangerous.

Abuse is physically beating the living daylights out of a child for no reason is wrong, it can damage a childs mind and make them either violent , it can have a nasty effect on the victim.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with a smack on the *** or arm or hand, not hard but hard enough to tell that child no, becuase sometimes no punishment can lead to what we call, problems, I.E. teenagers drinking and causing problems on the street...

The goverment just need to butt out of our buisness they aren't helping they are making thigs worse...

as my nan says: "When i was a young girl, parents would just pull down the childs pants in the middle of wherever they were and slap them hard on the backside, embarrasing the child and it behaved itself." my nan turned out fine, and all the other elderly you see don't go around and cause mayhem do they...

[Vekke]

self-mutilation and cat-eating are illegal?

how odd.

[Shadow]

i can honestly say that if my dad would smack me as a child " spank whatever" id hate him and fear him...

He have howerver grabed my arm when iv done something bad our dusent lissen to what he says "and crap only that hurt like hell" and he still do to this day and yanks a little

its not hard enough for me to cry with pain but defedently hard enough to make me know he means busniess...

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
It's still physical harm even if there is no lasting physical damage. It can cause emotional damage. A parent is someone who protects and cares for their child. How could it affect the child if the parent is also seen as one who causes physical pain?

And you say you feel a kid needs to experience some physical harm as a child. Sure, kids need to learn what activities are and are not dangerous. I scraped my knee plenty of times as a kid doing various activities. I learned how to deal with pain and how to be careful. But there is a difference between a child hurting themselves as the result of an accident and a child being deliberately hurt by their own parent.

I think the bottom line is that despite the fact that some children can be taught via spanking without any ill consequences, the fact that it does have severe consequences for some, the fact that for some parents, it becomes child abuse, and the fact that it is not necessary, means it's probably better banned than allowed.

A parent isn't always the touchy-feely kind of person. Sometimes they're also the ones that lay down the law (ie, the iron fist). There are currently child abuse laws in place that need enforced, I don't see how spanking falls under child abuse, as it isn't abusing the child.

And as for necessary, I agreed with you when you posted this:

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
And what you consider "necessary" is subjective.

I decide what is necessary discipline for my kid. Not the government. Not the community.

[Dyani]

The *someone* you mention STL is usually a policeman or social services. It usually works that way. Although they never get everyone.

[HasiraKali]

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. On one hand, I honestly don't see a problem with spanking. I've taken classes about child abuse for work and what they describe as spanking, is kind of harmless. I had my butt smacked a few times when I was little. I had to really be throwing a fit for it to happen, it was never for petty things. My parents found other ways to punish me once I started displaying my individuality. :p My CD's were taken away a few times. :lol: Oh and I cringe to remember the time they took my TLK tape away. :lol: A smack on the butt, over the clothes that doesn't render the child unable to sit, is ok with me. My mum used to have to go out into the backyard and choose the stick she wanted to be paddled with. How times have changed.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Dyani
In all honesty, since when does banning anything stop it happening? Whats banned at the moment? Drugs, prostitution, theft, child abuse, underage drinking, murder, paedophilia, gambling, vandalism, trespassing, animal-human sex, self-mutilation, stabbing mormons, copyright infringement, bashing Jews, whipping Africans, fighting, hate rape, sexual harassment, jumping the borders, pushing cripples downstairs, eating cats, bribing cops, downloading music, pistol-whipping old ladies, masturbation in public, setting your boss on fire, hijacking a short bus, driving without a licence, fishing without a licence, hunting without a licence, disturbing the peace, inpersonating a ferderal agent, spitting on the sidewalk, poisoning a salad bar, slander, terrosim, public intoxication, speeding and telling a quadrupedic child that his family are going straight to hell if he doesn't solve the rubix cube in less than two and a half minutes.


Heck, you know... most of these things happen none the less and half the time they get away with it. Since when will putting No Spanking in that list help stop it?
Well, gee, since making things illegal is apparently pointless, maybe we shouldn't ban anything at all?

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Dyani
In all honesty, since when does banning anything stop it happening? Whats banned at the moment? Drugs, prostitution, theft, child abuse, underage drinking, murder, paedophilia, gambling, vandalism, trespassing, animal-human sex, self-mutilation, stabbing mormons, copyright infringement, bashing Jews, whipping Africans, fighting, hate rape, sexual harassment, jumping the borders, pushing cripples downstairs, eating cats, bribing cops, downloading music, pistol-whipping old ladies, masturbation in public, setting your boss on fire, hijacking a short bus, driving without a licence, fishing without a licence, hunting without a licence, disturbing the peace, inpersonating a ferderal agent, spitting on the sidewalk, poisoning a salad bar, slander, terrosim, public intoxication, speeding and telling a quadrupedic child that his family are going straight to hell if he doesn't solve the rubix cube in less than two and a half minutes.


Heck, you know... most of these things happen none the less and half the time they get away with it. Since when will putting No Spanking in that list help stop it?


While banning something does not fully prevent the action from taking place, it does set a presence in society that those specific things are not desirable and puts the law in a position to prosecute if need be. While banning something does have a desired effect, even if it's not 100%, sometimes banning something only creates a whole new world of problems. Good examples would be the War on Drugs, Prohibition, and Prostitution. Banning, while attempting to curb the use and practice of such things, instead creates a black market for them and the crime associated with that market is obvious.

[SpiritWolf77]

Right, but you have to look at things on a case-by-case basis. Banning much-desired commodities often creates an unsafe black market. But banning dangerous activities obviously helps. Murder, for example.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Right, but you have to look at things on a case-by-case basis. Banning much-desired commodities often creates an unsafe black market. But banning dangerous activities obviously helps. Murder, for example.

I agree, just that it seems many of the activities that do happen to have large economic strength don't happen to be naturally violent...such as drug use (sans the actions of people high on drugs), etc...it seems the banning of such things increases the other crimes that happen to be included in the business. Since their specific markets can't be regulated, it makes it more desirable to protect your share of the market with other banned activities such as theft and murder.