However, there has not been extensive research to indicate substantially what the positive or negative effects have been on these children (Science News, 2002). How we define the terms of corporal punishment becomes the most controversial subject today among educators, doctors, psychologists, and organizations that support the human rights of a child. Corporal punishment differentiates from capital punishment. Yet, the terms are so broad and range from one extreme of mild spanking to the other extreme of being put to death that the term corporal punishment in itself needs to be re-defined. The focus of this research will be narrowed to the milder form of corporal punishment, otherwise known as spanking. A primary area of controversy with corporal punishment is the infliction of pain without injury (Benatar, 2001). Spanking, hitting, swatting, caning, beating and flogging to name just a few are forms of corporal punishment. In most forms, it is administered primarily by an adult usually in a home or school environment, which are punishments given for offenses that are deemed morally wrong. Corporal Punishment is an aggressive behavior that teaches children that aggression is acceptable (Thomas, 2002). Elizabeth Gershoff, a Developmental Psychologist with Columbia University’s National Center for Children in Poverty, has done the most comprehensive research on spanking. Gershoff’s research analyzed more than 80 studies on spanking spanning over 60 years Gershoff states, “The more children are spanked the more likely they are to be aggressive, delinquent, defiant, and to have mental health issues in the future”. The only fault to this research is the ability to identify how much spanking puts a child at risk.

Gershoff is not without criticism on the research she accomplished. Currently, there is still no evidence provided in her research that shows that corporal punishment implants a sense of right from wrong. In the United States, corporal punishment has been the conventional method of discipline since early colonial times (Andero, Stewart). It is illegal in all 50 states for another adult to physically strike another adult in any manner. In fact, it is considered a crime and is punishable under the law, which does not apply to those under eighteen. In our country, it is legal for parents to hit, strike, or use corporal punishment against their own children. Each state may have a different definition for corporal punishment, which does not meet the criteria to be considered child abuse (Couture, 2001). There are Twenty-seven states that banned corporal punishment in public and private schools, while 23 states are still permitted to practice corporal punishment. A study done in 1996 by the American Academy of Pediatrics comprised of middle-class families questioned 320 two-parent families where at least one parent and child completed a questionnaire with the primary focus being the use of corporal punishment in the home. It is important to note the children were questioned in a separate room where the answers could not be directly influenced by their parent. In this study, 17% of the families did not use corporal punishment while 83% did. Of that, 35% of the participants reported using an object to deliver the punishment (Graziano, Hamblen, Plante, 1996). Most parents believe spanking teaches children important and valuable lessons. Parents also indicated in this study, the major reason for punishing their children is disobedience, and disrespectfulness, which challenged their parental authority. Additionally, they also displayed the attitude that it is a parental right and fact of life (Graziano et al., 1996). The American Academy of pediatrics research suggests that corporal punishment is the least effective form of discipline. Elizabeth Gershoff contends that “the practice of corporal punishment can be traced to the American colonial belief of obedience to parents teaches children obedience to god” (Psychology Today, 2002, p26), which may be why many people believe the adage “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is a biblical endorsement. This adage came from the poem “Hudibras”, written by Samuel Butler in 1664, which does not appear in scripture. When scripture is used in the rearing of children it is very easy for scripture to be misunderstood and misquoted. One such example would be Proverbs 23:13,14 is a commonly cited scripture for support in the use of corporal punishment. It is well known that King Solomon, author of the book of Proverbs, was recorded as a brutal king, who thirsted for violence. Supposedly, the book of proverbs reflects his parenting beliefs.

Solomon’s son Rehoboam became a hated ruler and had to leave to avoid assassination from his own people. Many Christians today believe the “Rod” is a symbolic metaphor for a shepherd’s staff, which was used to lead or guide not to hit. Many of the arguments that are raised in the debate on corporal punishment are the lasting effect on children. Some of the identified arguments raised by people who believe corporal punishment should not be inflicted are, (Benetar, 2001): · Corporal Punishment leads to child abuse · It is degrading and humiliating to a child · It is psychologically damaging · It teaches children the wrong lesson · It causes children to form poor relationships · It does not deter the disobedient behavior. Research into the relations between corporal punishment and child abuse are questionable, so far (Benetar, 2001). Degrading or shaming a child by the use of corporal punishment does lower ones sense of how others may view them, which can also lower a child’s self-esteem, cause depression, and even anxiety.

Corporal punishment has also been found to cause sexual and social problems (Benetar 2001). It is indicative of external control regardless of the intent. It is also misguided and confuses the issues of love and violence. Discipline and punishment have two very different but distinct definitions, except society deems them as one in the same. In fact, discipline is a very important part of Christian life, and is the ability to teach appropriate and acceptable behavior in children. Discipline does not inflict pain or fear in a child. Conversely it does provide harsh punishment does inflict physical pain and is used for power and reprisal. However, discipline provides a child a foundation of love; trust, and mutual respect. A child’s relationship with a parent should never be based on fear, pain and intimidation; instead it should be with tenderness, affection, and fondness. National attention has been brought to the plight of children and their rights. Ten nations have banned any form of corporal punishment. First, in 1979, Sweden protected children against corporal punishment. Sweden banned parents from using corporal punishment in any way on children, but, unfortunately, parents were not prosecuted for corporal punishment under the law (Couture, 2001). There were cases documented in the United States on corporal punishment since the early 1920’s. For instance, in Atlantic City, New Jersey, a father was summoned to court because of his son’s unruliness. On July 9, 1927, Judge William H. Smathers advised the father to give his son “a thick and heavy licking” for creating trouble at home, and staying out late. The judge was eager and willing to demonstrate this punishment (New York Times, 1927). Another well-documented incident on March 24, 1925, demonstrates in two separate states, that corporal punishment was the norm for disobedient children. In Philadelphia, two boys were given the sentence of an old-fashioned “woodshed walloping” for taking a motor vehicle which was not their own. The second incident, in Kansas, Judge Henry Meade himself spanked two boys for playing hooky (New York Times, 1925). Court cases reviewed in today’s society, tell a different side of corporal punishment. One case in particular occurred in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Blair County Children and Youth Service filed reports with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, against a 13-year-old boy’s parent for child abuse. According to court records, the child was paddled for being aggressive and verbally abusive towards his mother and her male partner. The child was paddled more than twelve times, suffered bruises and had trouble sitting for several days. There were no criminal charges filed against the parents, the courts said there was no evidence of malicious intent or negligence and the child’s bruises were the “normal regrettable result” of a paddling (WTAE-TV, 2003). Yet, in another case in Pierre, South Dakota a circuit judge found a 12-year-old boy’s Mother and Stepfather guilty of neglect and abuse. Court records show the child’s stepfather admitting he had taken the child to his bedroom and spanked him eight to ten times with a belt. The father had said the child had thrown a trashcan, and when confronted became out of control. The parents filing an appeal argued with the courts on three separate grounds, one being it was reasonable punishment based on the child’s behavior over a three-month span, the second being the spanking was proper under a state law that allows parents to use reasonable and moderate force to restrain or correct their children. The third being the state of South Dakota’s child abuse law is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court unanimously up held the ruling of the circuit judge, rejecting the parent’s arguments. Justice Richard W. Sabers wrote for the court “A reasonable person would be aware that forcing a child face down on a mattress, grabbing the child’s arm tight enough to leave bruises and beating him hard enough to leave bruises constitutes abuse”. South Dakota law says such force must be reasonable in manner and moderate in degree. The Supreme Courts ruling enforced the circuit judges ruling to have the child place elsewhere (Aberdeen News, 2003). It has been long established legislative policy to safe guard the rights of parents often at the expense of children. Indeed, parents should manage and control their children. However, children deserve the same basic rights due to all human life. Guidelines and limits should be set for all children; a child can only be expected to behave if the child’s parents are living by the values they are teaching their children. Discipline is about developing unquestioning, mutual and respectful bond between child and caretaker. Children who have strong, loving role models, and constructive, non-punitive discipline are more likely to have noticeable self-discipline, excellent social skills, individual accountability and respect and concern for others.

________________________

Warning! This is an extract from free term paper example on Corporal Punishment cannot be used as your own term paper research. This sample term paper can be easily detected as plagiarism by any plagiarism detection tool.

Our online term paper writing service MidTerm.us can provide college and university students with 100% non-plagiarized custom written term papers on any topic. All custom term papers are written from scratch by qualified writers. High quality, fast delivery and professional term paper help are guaranteed.

Over the last 50 years in particular, family life and the way it is organised in different societies has been a very popular area of study for sociologists. This has resulted in a great body of information being assembled which needs to be continually updated. This term paper will discuss the place of the family in society and different forms it may take.

The family may be defined as a unit within a society where people who are related to one another, either through birth or marriage, live together. The word “family” itself can have many meanings and uses. For instance it may be used to describe any group of persons, animals, plants, or items that are related to each other in some way. This is a very simple definition, but the fact is that “family”, either in its popular or academic use, is possibly one of the most ambiguous words in the English dictionary.

The functions of the family as seen from the theoretical perspective of functionalism includes such things as: the legitimising of sexual behaviour, the care and rearing of children, the roles of husband and wife, and the provision of a safe, secure environment for the emotional needs of the family members. The belief that the family provides all or any of the above for its members, especially for children, can be as true as it is false. With this in mind it is easy to see why the functionalist approach has lost its popularity with sociologists in recent times. Family life for some people is anything but safe and secure, and the reality for a lot of men, women and children, is that the family can be a source of misery and pain. This view is supported by the continuous news reports and court cases relating to violence of a sexual, physical or emotional nature directed towards a family member by other family members. An additional failing of the functionalist approach is its failing to take on board the effects of whatever economical situation people find themselves in. As economic systems can vary greatly from society to society, they have an enormous effect on family life.

Writing about the Kgatla tribe, who live in Botswana in southern Africa, Isaac Shapera tells us that the family in this case is seen as a man, his wives, their children, and other relatives. The family units in this tribe were self-sufficient. They produced their own food, built their own houses, and assisted one another in times of personal difficulties. They also socialised together. In addition, they bartered with other families if there was something needed that they could not produce themselves. This type of economy is known as a subsistence economy, and it provides just the bare necessity for survival.

In comparison to the families living in and depending on an industrial society, those depending on a subsistence economy live in poverty. They are very vulnerable to starvation and disease and in times of freak weather conditions and natural disasters rely on each other more, as they do not have the backup of state intervention in times of great need.

Before the Socialist Revolution of October 1917 in Russia, family life was controlled by various religious groups under the tsars. When the Bolsheviks took power, they immediately took steps to reduce the power of those groups, who they saw as upholding the concerns of the bourgeoisie. Using the Marxist ideal, they attempted to liberalise marriage relationships and divorce. The new rulers saw the old ways and ideas as an obstacle to building a socialist state.

1918 saw the introduction of civil marriage in place of the religious ceremony. It was now no longer for a wife to take her husband’s name. A wife was no longer bound to live with her husband, and the prejudicial treatment of illegitimate children was abolished. By the 1920s and 1930s, family life in Russia was breaking down and was being threatened from all sides. Juvenile delinquency and promiscuity were on the rise. The Soviet press and western observers blamed the newfound sexual freedom for the breakdown of the family.

In China, the subjugation and oppression of women and young girls was carried to extreme lengths both within and outside the family. The people of this society lived by the philosophy of Confucius, which was particularly cruel to women. There were three “obediences” demanded of women: 1) when young, women were bound to obey their fathers and older brothers, 2) when married, they had to obey their husbands and 3) if widowed, they were bound to obey their sons. Women also had to possess four virtues: 1) they should know their place, 2) hold their tongue, 3) look attractive and 4) love housework. Marriages were like business arrangements, and the marriage of children was not uncommon. The selling of young girls into prostitution was also used as an alternative to marriage. Chinese women were used to produce children, and had their feet bound when they were very young to keep their movements to a minimum. Divorce was impossible for women, though a man could divorce his wife at any time.

In 1949 the People’s Republic of China was founded under the leadership of Mao Tse Tung. This brought about an immediate change. The buying and selling of young girls was prohibited, and new laws of marriage were enacted. Discrimination against illegitimate children, which was also part of this society, was forbidden, and divorce was allowed if both husband and wife wanted it, though it was not encouraged.

China today encourages its young people not to marry at a very young age, believing that education should go on until the early twenties. The early part of a person’s life should not be burdened by the responsibilities of marriage. Marriage ceremonies are very brief affairs, and only require a visit to the local government office.

A great deal of co-operation takes place between families in China, and it is not uncommon for families to be sharing such things as kitchen and bathroom facilities. In addition, the elderly members of families provide childcare and look after the domestic side of family life, allowing younger family members to work outside the home. Another point of interest is that in China the state has introduced measure whereby the burden on working women is reduced by the provision of childcare, washing and sewing facilities, and public dining facilities. Family planning, contraception, sterilisation, and abortion are freely available in China.

Because of the many and diverse societies in the world, this makes for many different types of family unit. The nuclear or conjugal family came into being as a result of the development of capitalism in western societies. It is made up of a wife, husband, and children, and though it is accepted as a modern development, parish and town records in Britain show that families of this nature have existed as far back as the 16th century. There are certain rules and values which govern the nuclear family, regardless of what society it belongs to. For example, one of these rules is that sexual relations between family members is forbidden, except between husband and wife. Some societies also prohibit divorce, as was the case in Ireland until recently. However, this prohibition, which was written into the Irish constitution in 1937, was amended in 1995.

The needs of a capitalist economy are served well by the versatile nuclear family. This versatility is assisted by the concept of “division of labour” within the family. This concept has several uses, but for the purposes of this paper, the focus will be on difference between “wage labour” and “domestic labour”. Domestic labour is taken on by one of the partners in the family, usually the woman, while wage labour is done by the other partner. The independence of the family unit and the division of labour within it is fundamental to the capitalist system. This independence from other families makes them more reliant on the capitalist system for which they provide the labour, plus they are also the market on which the system survives.

Ireland is home of many variations of family life. One of these is the “stem” family. This was made up of the parents, one of their married sons (usually the eldest), his wife and children, and his brothers or sisters. It was similar to a family type which exists within the Hindu religion and consists of married sons and their wives and children sharing the one household. In this patriarchal family the oldest male managed its affairs.

Another form of family was reported by Fox, this time on Tory Island. On this island, out of 50 recorded marriages, ten couples conformed to a system whereby the husbands and wives lived with their own parents and had a visiting relationship with their spouse.

Yet another family type which is rapidly increasing in number is the single parent family. These were initially the result of a rising divorce rate, but more recently it has gained popularity with a growing population of young mothers who have no desire to marry. It is no longer necessary for a young pregnant woman to rush into a marriage because of the stigma attached to being pregnant out of wedlock.

Family ties are not limited to the nuclear or conjugal relationship. The stem family or the Hindu joint family mentioned above is basically an expansion of the nuclear family. The term “extended family” is used by sociologists to describe that type of family which exists when a number of nuclear families live in close proximity to one another and are socialising on an ongoing basis.

The family as the primary unit of society has been discussed in this paper. It is quite clear that for the survival of humanity some form of family is vital. This reason alone is a sufficient indication of its primacy in society.

________________________

Warning! This is a free sample term paper on Family which cannot be used as your own term paper research. This term paper example can be easily detected as plagiarism by any plagiarism detection tool.

Our online term paper writing service MidTerm.us can provide college and university students with 100% non-plagiarized custom written term papers on any topic. All custom term papers are written from scratch by qualified writers. High quality, fast delivery and professional term paper help are guaranteed.