School fights, child abuse, domestic violence and police brutality dominate the news. They are often viewed as discrete issues demanding separate solutions, when they are instead common threads weaving into the fabric that is our culture of violence.
As a teenager, I considered the border between corporal punishment and child abuse as shaped by ensuring the child also understood you loved him/her; understood “licks” was a form of discipline; was never beaten in anger; and was never hurt “too much”. While these parameters may make sense to a society fully sold into the licks doctrine, they are not firmly enshrined in law.
The Children's Act affirms the legality of “reasonable” corporal punishment without distinguishing it from “assault”.
With the line between “just enough licks” and “too much” still legally blurry, ask yourself – if every time you beat your child were filmed, would you be exonerated in the court of public opinion or otherwise?
Some look to escalating school violence and call the removal of corporal punishment as its cause. I'm not so sure.
School violence always existed; social media has simply made it more visible. Any increase may be more appropriately ascribed to students acclimatising to increasing violence in the wider society, as evidenced by soaring crime.
I further suggest children who fight in schools fight not because teachers can't beat them, but because parents already do.
Homes where licks is the main form of discipline will not automatically produce violent individuals, but it may shape minds which see violence as an important component of solutions to problems.
Some percentage of homes will always be “broken”, add licks to mix and society will invariably produce more violent individuals.
So, when confronted by problems, how else could students respond but with fists and feet? And then, if a man can beat his child, why can't he beat his wife? And if he can beat a small, defenceless person, surely a policeman can beat a suspected criminal.
Some policemen, incapable of proper investigative work, attempt to beat suspects into confession. This perfectly encapsulates our problem.
There are ways to deal with undisciplined children other than beatings, but much like some policemen, we don't know how to effect the alternatives, so we default to the method we know.
Our thinking must shift from punitive to rehabilitative. Punishment forces us do right using fear of the physical, mental or financial pain associated with getting caught. Rehabilitation imparts the understanding of why doing right is better and, importantly, provide tools to make that choice easier.
I am not saying punishment has no place in society – only that its place in ours is far too significant, and that the violent component of punishment is central when it should be marginal.
I am also not trying to take your belt away – only asking that you properly consider other options before resorting to it.
Discipline without licks will require more time, effort and creativity, but there are many books and websites dedicated to such – educate yourself. More knowledge is always better than less.
Some rail against this thinking, but the evidence in progressive countries supports me. Some say our culture is different, but do we know this to be a fact?
Did licks instil the discipline apparent in our most successful and least violent citizens? I believe licks more likely shaped our prison population, but absent the research, my proposition is as good as yours.
Still, I agree that our culture is “different”. It is mired in violence. It is flawed. It needs an overhaul. Because violence among and against children, by domestic partners and police will not be solved by what our culture dictates – more violence.
Taryn Salazar
Source: http://www.trinidadexpress.com/20151130/letters/looking-for-a-cure-to-violence
No comments:
Post a Comment