Corporal punnishment. Yes or no?

Answer 1

Ask yourself this, since our society has moved away from corporal punishment have the schools improved or not? Is there less violence in our society and in our schools? The answers to that will tell you if the lack of corporal punishment is a good or bad decision.

Answer 2

corect word: Punishment

My personal opinion: a big NO for the corporal punishment.
Everybody knows or feels that the punisment itself it is not a good option in correcting or educationg creatures. But we will stick to humans for now.

When we use the corporal punishment we want to educate, correct, improve the behavior of someone so it is used as a negative conditioning: " When you do this wrong thing . . . the punishment will happen "

As we know now the positive conditioning is far more potent comparing with the negative conditioning, expecially in chidren education.

I would never use corporal punishment on my child or someone else (even the laws are forbiding this, and who are we to punish someone else?). I can tell you more about this but I hope a good psychologist will help you with this answer.

Answer 3

Yes

Answer 4

For the benefit of the morons....

CORPORAL = physical chastisement / discipline sometimes with an impliment.

CAPITAL = state sanctioned pre-meditated murder.

And yes, CORPORAL punishment - bring it back, but only as a last resort & not in the hands of sadistic educators.
(ie. appropriatly administered with an independant adult witness present)

I left school as it was being phased out in the UK - the belt / strap was NOT a deterrant to the real hard cases...it just didn't hurt that much, but it DID keep the average student in line with the possible consequences being more than a student being told "that is not acceptable behavior - but I respect your right to free speech and to exercise your right to violence..." PLEASE, stop being such bleeding heart liberals & discipline the youth of today - these do-gooders have created monsters with no respect for adult authority.

Answer 5

A very trick subject......for two reasons I would say.

1. The onus of absolute proof....clearly there have been mistakes made in the past when someone has been put to death and then of course it is too late to discover some new information that exonerates them etc..........

I think most people would agree that if proof could be obtained re: a horrific crime then the death sentence is applicable. Apart from hopefully acting as a deterrent for people carrying out such crimes, it also stops the state paying at enormous expense for them to spend the rest of their life in jail....no good to anyone that especially given the increasing burden on the state of housing such people etc....

2. Moral judgements

Whilst I am not one who would push such arguments.....there is a strong argument re: whether the state really has the right to put someone to death however horrific their crimes might have been. Do we have a right as a western democratic state to do this.....?

The debate will rage on forever I suspect.....

Answer 6

Yes

Answer 7

Yes

Answer 8

I use to think yes, but no let them suffer each day to remind them of what they have done. For terrorists and murderers and any crime towards children, their life should be made hell every living day. No luxuries, just bread and water for food and sitting in a room with no windows. In fact if all prisons were like this (as in a lot of countries), the crime rate would drop.

Answer 9

Yes, but only for serious offences. I don't think it should be used for silly things like forgetting a book. I think things have got a lot worse since it was abolished. Things were a lot better when I was at school

Answer 10

My Grandmother had 9 kids and 4 mules .
She said , "Kids and mules are just alike , every once and awhile you have to get their attention " .
For the mules she used a 2x4 .
We were give pain receptors to tell us " DON'T DO THAT " .
A properly administered spanking is an attention getter .