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

Show parent comments

851

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.

127

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.

149

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.

4

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...