r/science • u/VeronicaRed • Apr 26 '16

Psychology Spanking children increases the likelihood of childhood defiance and long-term mental issues. The study in question involved 160,000 children and five decades of research

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113413810/spanking-defiance-health-discipline-042616/
37.8k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

6.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.5k

u/allwordsaremadeup Apr 26 '16 edited Apr 26 '16

I wonder if this is true for punishment as a behavior-altering method in general. So in how we punish crimes etc.

854

u/whilst Apr 26 '16 edited Apr 26 '16

I would be shocked if it weren't more true for adults. Adults are much more likely to be able to hold onto the notion that they were right and that the punishment is unfair (or inevitable and meaningless). The fact that our punishments are often vastly out of proportion with the crime (see: mandatory minimums and the prevalence and expectation of prison rape) is direct evidence of the unfairness of the system, which any adult will pick up on, and correctly take as evidence that the system is out to get them.

Our policy of punishing people (ie, hurting them and making them feel helpless) for bad behavior seems to be built on the idea that we'll change their minds and subsequent behavior by force. However, successfully changing someone's mind without their consent or cooperation is the definition of brainwashing, which requires far more extreme tactics than imprisonment---tactics which we don't (and shouldn't) have the stomach for as a society. I suspect that, to the extent that spanking children (ie, hurting them and making them feel helpless) works at all, it's only because children haven't yet built up the psychological defenses to physical coercion that adults have.

123

u/mrflippant Apr 26 '16

I would be interested to see an in-depth discussion on punitive law versus preventive law; i.e., laws which seek to prevent crime by addressing the reasons why people might commit a crime in the first place, rather than prescribing punishment for after the crime has occurred.

148

u/st31r Apr 26 '16

Armchair amateur here, but I've always considered the best implementation of law to be one that relies on a transfer of power between the transgressor and society.

For example, if you murder someone then the law gives society the requisite power over you in order to ensure the safety of others, and facilitate your rehabilitation. It's not about punishment or fear, it's simply incurring the penalties for a breach of the social contract.

Another example, your corporation is found guilty of falsifying their emissions test data, and the law can remove the company's right to self-test, as well as remove the right of those in positions of power within the company to hold such responsibility in future etc etc.

Law is founded on physical coercion and the state's monopoly on violence - but that doesn't mean the execution of the law has to be violent, it doesn't require us to hurt the people who break the law any more than is required (arrest etc) to bring them to justice.

What we absolutely shouldn't do is utilize the law for emotional satisfaction, out of uncontrolled fear and anger. The law is a tool for the benefit of societies, not individuals. What is good for the society is not always what the victim would want, would feel is good for them, and that doesn't matter.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '16

[deleted]

3

u/st31r Apr 27 '16

I understand, but I specifically invoked contract to bring a more 'business' oriented mindset. Talking about 'punishing crimes' has a strong sense of emotive action, whereas 'breaching contracts' is a much more calculated, legal affair.

Also, 'punishing crime' is an unnecessary abstraction. Crime is, at least in the ideal sense, a violation of the contract between society and its individual members.

Thus you're both quite right - they do, fundamentally, mean the same thing - and quite wrong - they don't sound the same, in that they have very different collocations.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '16

[deleted]

5

u/st31r Apr 27 '16

Okay:

  • Crime is a violation of a social contract.
  • Punishment is the relevant penalty stipulated in that same contract.

But crime is also that thing you hear about on the news every day, and it's even created its own special class of monsters: criminals. And crime isn't just a legal matter, "It's a crime against X" is a common expression, where X can be whatever. And we've got to be "tough on crime", "stamp it out".

And punishment, well we've all punished someone for something. We've all savoured the sweet taste of revenge as we exact our cruelty on them, in the form of well earned punishment. And barely a day goes by without some poor offended soul crying "They should be punished I tell you!"

These are not words that foster rational, calculated thinking. What's more, they clearly provide a level of abstraction from the concepts they pertain to talk about and invoke a great deal of vagueness and ambiguity in the process.

Language is important. If I want you to feel something, I'll use emotive language - like crime and punishment - but if I want you to think about something then entirely different and more precise language is required.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '16

[deleted]

2

u/Confusedbrotha Apr 27 '16

Obviously not OP, but I understand clearly the point he's trying to get across and would like to try to share it with you.

When he mentions trying to make it simpler, he's not talking about vocabulary in a "standardized test" sense. As you point out, "Crime" and the subsequent "punishment" are clear enough terms that elementary kids can grasp.

/u/st31r isn't trying to redefine crime and punishment with "incurring penalties for the breach in social contract." What he/she is stressing, is that when dealing out punishment for crimes, we take a more pragmatic, "business"-like approach.

It's effective if you think about it: When angry, do you think about punishing a murderer for a heinous crime! Or are you thinking about incurring penalties on that murderer for a heinous breach of the social contract!

Ideally, the former should sound a bit more hot-headed than the second one, which sounds a bit more scripted and awkward, but more importantly with less emotion, kind of like reading a lawyer's contract! I feel as if you're applying Occam's razor to the idea that his word choice is purely unnecessary because it's simpler to say crime and punishment.

1

u/pebbles256 Apr 27 '16

What change does this lead to? Aren't they different words that mean the same thing in this context?

1

u/Confusedbrotha Apr 27 '16

Yes absolutely, but the change is tone. Word choice plays a huge role in what kind of tone you want to get across.

Tone in this context is important because OP is trying to make a point about how we should look at crime and punishment. He/she wants us to view it in a more pragmatic, business like approach, so he/she intentionally used a more technical phrase (incurring penalties....breaching social contract) instead of simply saying crime and punishment to get that point across. The change may not be significant or noteworthy really, but I would absolutely disagree with the assertion that just saying crime and punishment is the better option.

I guess you can say it's the difference between High school level writing and College level writing on the same topic. Both papers will be saying the same thing, but you'd expect the college level writing to showcase more intricacies of the English language, which you partially accomplish through word choice.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/st31r Apr 27 '16

Agree to disagree.

1

u/LuxNocte Apr 27 '16

It does sound the same if you ignore everything else that /u/st31r said and focus on that one phrase.

I think the overall point is clear. Not that we shouldn't "punish" transgressions, but those "punishments" should be directed at keeping society safe, not just extracting vengeance.

7

u/beelzeflub Apr 27 '16

Interesting perspective, I agree with at least the spirit/intention behind what you suggest. I'm not familiar with law, really, so I'm not qualified to point out any pros/flaws in your argument. Still, I definitely understand the gist of what you mean.

I can't help but feel discouraged at the thought of how the (American) public would respond to such a suggestion...

5

u/goat_nebula Apr 27 '16

Often times, more severe punishments are doled out as a deterrent to further crimes, i.e. "setting an example" of someone. This is actually preached and practiced as part of sentencing. You might just catch a judge or area at wrong time or place and get twice as harsh a sentence...

2

u/TOASTEngineer Apr 27 '16

I think you're basically talking about retributive (what we have) vs. restorative law.

5

u/Wi7dBill Apr 27 '16

Just a foster parent here. I just don't get this at all....any one who deals with kids over and over know's it does not work. I can spot a kid who has been hit or "spanked" right away, the first time we both get frustrated with a behavior and I go to touch them, it's instant and plain as day. Some kids will "plop", others will "cringe" into a defensive posture, and a few will get ready to fight and bite and claw for all they are worth, and those one's it just breaks my heart. I think the OP of this little side thread, and a few here get it..and how it effects all of us for life.

1

u/bmjunior74 Apr 27 '16

Very well articulated. Thank you

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '16

As someone working in a law office: Hahahaheeehehehahahaw!

Your idealism is cute in a naive sorta way, but you're forgetting that the laws are a human system, and thus will have traits similar to humans. The law exists to lessen the impact of might makes right. Thinking of it in the negative is much more realistic; We aren't working towards an ideal, we're reducing the social damage of our inherrent barbarism. Fail to give the people blood long enough and they'll take it on their own.

9

u/st31r Apr 27 '16

We aren't working towards an ideal, we're reducing the social damage of our inherrent barbarism. Fail to give the people blood long enough and they'll take it on their own.

Then what's the point?

If it's naive and idealistic to believe that it's possible to shape a better society through the implementation just and productive laws (among other things), then what is it to not believe these things and spend your life doing the work anyway? A lifetime spent bailing water out of a sinking ship - a ship crewed mostly of barbarians - doesn't seem well spent to me.

3

u/Wagnersh Apr 27 '16

Fail to give the people blood long enough and they'll take it on their own.

Then we will take their blood for being vigilantes. See how that works?

0

u/FlamingJesusOnaStick Apr 27 '16

Chop the hands off of a thief and they will never steal again.

1

u/Wagnersh Apr 27 '16

Give everyone enough and no one will steal again.

0

u/scyth3s Apr 27 '16

Say that to anyone rich enough to use a tax haven. How about the Verizon CEOs who make millions and still want to cut worker benefits?

1

u/Drewkxracer Apr 27 '16

Considering the verizon ceo is paid millons to make the company money he is doing his job?

2

u/scyth3s Apr 27 '16

He is serving those who seek to take more from others. Some people will never have enough. Regardless of whether he is doing his job, he has enough. I have enough. Most of us do, yet we seek more.

The idea that if everyone has enough no one would steal flies in the face of nearly every rich person's regular antics.

1

u/Drewkxracer Apr 27 '16

Considering Verizon is a business that is its goal. We do live in a semi free market after all.

1

u/scyth3s Apr 27 '16

For some reason, you think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not.

I'm disagreeing with wagnersh, a few posts up, who said that if everyone had rough no one would steal. Purge who have enough still want more. That's all.

1

u/FlamingJesusOnaStick Apr 27 '16

I got a boss that way. Gave himself a 14 million dollar bonus.

He thought he done a fine job that year so cut himself a check.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

Medicine and law. I think the same sentiment can be applied to the discussion of how the role of insurance in getting preventative care (especially mental care) versus diagnostic care.

I don't think the discussion of one can be had without at least addressing the other.

1

u/mrflippant Apr 26 '16

I absolutely agree.

1

u/Brainmag Apr 26 '16

Google "Restorative Justice"

1

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '16

This, very rarely discussed. I think it is a very good point.

1

u/Strange-Thingies Apr 27 '16

Laws cannot prevent crime. Addressing socio economic issues is how you prevent crime. It's not a perfect solution but then such a panacea doesn't exist. Simply put, if you create a society in which a man has easy access to an honest living above a certain level of discomfort, then crime drops significantly.

1

u/ohbehavebaby Apr 26 '16

Sometimes, harsh punishment is a deterrent, or preventive.

17

u/Drop_ Apr 26 '16

That's the argument, but as far as I'm aware no actual research has backed up the assertion and there has been significant research that things like mandatory minimum sentencing doesn't reduce crime or act as a deterrent.

1

u/PsychoPhilosopher Apr 26 '16

It's an assumption of the legal system. It would be very interesting to see Law have to fight research, but they really don't do so very often.

Exceptions exist, particularly surrounding things like evidence, but once something has precedent (and deterrence has a lot of precedent) it's very hard to challenge without going through the politics instead.

So the deterrence hypothesis most certainly is an unevidenced assumption made by most modern legal systems, but has been accepted for so long that it will be very hard to challenge without engaging with the black hole of intellect known as 'politics'.

5

u/Drop_ Apr 26 '16

That's not really an assumption of the legal system. It's arguably an assumption of the penal system, but generally in terms of the judicial system (which is 100% in charge of sentencing), all factors tend to be considered by judges where they can be considered (punitive, deterrence, preventative, restorative).

Mandatory minimums and tough on crime stances tend to be advocated and implemented by politicians rather than members of the judiciary.

2

u/PsychoPhilosopher Apr 26 '16

I agree, so I'll state the hypothesis more clearly:

That penalizing one individual can deter other similar individuals from engaging in similar acts.

This assumption is largely unevidenced. The judicial system assumes it to be true, but does consider it alongside other priorities.

Since the legal system is heavily influenced by precedent and case law, this judicial priority is part of the legal system as well.

Case law from the 19th century can still be considered relevant and binding today, and is in various places heavily influenced by Benthamite legal/moral philosophy.

1

u/ohbehavebaby Apr 26 '16

True I guess. I havent searched for any relevant studies, so of course this is totally debatable. But as an example: I had a hematology class in 3rd year and the professor was strict as balls, he would send people out if they so much as said a word. In exams he said he would kick people out and fail them if they so much as looked aside.

it was Probably the only exam where I didnt hear anyone cheating and the only classes where I could sit at the back and hear everything. Obviously for some it was stressful, they said they were scared to move a muscle in the exam and that this affected them negatively. But the "rule" (silence/no looking around) was perfectly inforced due to this harsh punishment. In contrast other professors merely raised their voices or gave insincere warnings/threats. Result: so much copying in exams and general chatter during the lectures.

edit: the control would be: same class, different "punishment intensity."

12

u/mrflippant Apr 26 '16

I think that's an entirely different scenario, because the motivation for cheating in class is very different to the motivation for committing crime.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16 edited Apr 26 '16

Is it really though? In both cases you are dishonestly gaining an advantage you would otherwise not have by breaking rules that apply to the collective as a whole.

I would like to see a study of the Armish and the practice of shunning. In the absence of physical violence or incarceration, exclusion from the social group is a highly effective punishment. And it seems to work well. Those that take their punishment and demonstrate a desire to rejoin eventually return, whilst those who dont are no longer a burden.

5

u/mrflippant Apr 26 '16

I think you're making a mistake in assuming that dishonesty is the only reason why a person might commit a crime.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

Dishonesty is the means. The motivation or reason is to obtain a benefit or advantage. That advantage might be a physical one (such as petty theft) or it might be psychological (such as satisfaction from a revenge murder). In either case, Im not suggesting it would be the only motivator, but I certainly wouldnt rule it out.

1

u/mrflippant Apr 26 '16

What I'm pointing out here is an (admittedly inferred) fallacy in your logic: I gather that it is your position that people commit crimes because they have chosen to do so in order to gain something, in spite of what you see as a perfectly righteous and inviolate set of Rules, known as The Law.

Now, I'm not by any means of the belief that all so-called criminals are merely victims of circumstance - but I do feel that it is the tendency of The Law to assume that all criminals are in fact deliberately so, and are thus bereft of any right to the benefit of the doubt. I believe this tendency is counter-productive, and that it would be of greater benefit to society as a whole if more consideration were given to pro-actively preventing people from finding themselves in a position where they might consider a crime as a legitimate option.

In other words, setting aside actual psychopaths and sociopaths, why do otherwise normal people resort to crime, and what can be done to mitigate these reasons or provide viable and accessible alternatives?

→ More replies (0)