Father charged in son's spanking.

[gerryh]

I've got a senario for ya's....someone may want to quote this so sjp can see it....


A 14 year old boy get's caught up with the wrong bunch.... he goes out with them one afternoon and plays "look-out" while they preform a few b&E's in the neighbourhood.

When he get's home, his parents question the new "toys" he sudenly has, they find out within the hour what happened that afternoon. They call the police and the following day take the boy to the local station house and turn him in along with the "toys". The boy is finger printed, and charged. Naturally, because of the boys age, social services is called and get's involved. The boy is given a court date 4 months down the road. The parents inform him that he is grounded to the house except for school, with the grounding to be reviewed after the court date.

What's your opinion of how the parents handled this problem and the consequence they decided on?

 

[Unforgiven]

Never called anyone stupid.

Oh you just want to play with words.
Sure you did.

Children are very intelligent, they use that intelligence to learn.

Only with guidence. With out that guidence they are hopeless.

One can pick out exceptions to a rule anywhere, in any walk of life.

Of course and this is the case where your blanket statments fall. Some people are inteligent enough to know when a blanket statement is going to fail and when it's not. You don't have that ability.

There is a difference in a game between 'violence', and legal hitting, that

is the exception, in the case you referred to.

Fighting is part of hockey. It's the idiots who attempt to remove an aspect of the game without adjusting all the other parts that are affected by that removal that cause problems in the game.

No children need to be hit/spanked, in my opinion, I think it is wrong.

That's fine, you're allowed to have an opinion. That doesn't change anything for anyone else though.

I would never ignore my child while they are misbehaving.

I never supported ignoring children while they are misbehaving.
You take many statements and throw them into one post, as though
they belong to that person.

You own your words.

My opinion re: hitting/spanking is a general statement, if it applies to you

or anyone else, fine, but try to control your behavior, or you will probably
have a priviledge removed 'again', as I notice that happened previously, and
you deserved it.

I am controling my behaviour. It's just fine by the way. No priviledge has been removed. Nor has it ever been here.

I wouldn't spank/hit you though, but I'm sure glad I'm out of your reach.

It wouldn't matter if you did. I would quickly and easily take control of the situation though. Obviously there is nothing you could or would do about it.

Other than sitting there gasping as a witness, you are helpless when something terrible happens. People like me step up. Hence your own tepid courage while being safely out of range. Like sir dumberth, you only talk a good game.

 

[AnnaG]

I've got a senario for ya's....someone may want to quote this so sjp can see it....


A 14 year old boy get's caught up with the wrong bunch.... he goes out with them one afternoon and plays "look-out" while they preform a few b&E's in the neighbourhood.

When he get's home, his parents question the new "toys" he sudenly has, they find out within the hour what happened that afternoon. They call the police and the following day take the boy to the local station house and turn him in along with the "toys". The boy is finger printed, and charged. Naturally, because of the boys age, social services is called and get's involved. The boy is given a court date 4 months down the road. The parents inform him that he is grounded to the house except for school, with the grounding to be reviewed after the court date.

What's your opinion of how the parents handled this problem and the consequence they decided on?

I can't comment on it too much because I don't know the parents or the child. But it may have been quite appropriate behavior on the part of the parents, or it might have been excessive. Hopefully it would be enough to scare the snot out of the boy enough to make him choose friends more carefully and discern more easily what behavior is acceptable and what isn't.

 

[gerryh]

I can't comment on it too much because I don't know the parents or the child. But it may have been quite appropriate behavior on the part of the parents, or it might have been excessive. Hopefully it would be enough to scare the snot out of the boy enough to make him choose friends more carefully and discern more easily what behavior is acceptable and what isn't.

What might have been excessive?

 

[Unforgiven]

I've got a senario for ya's....someone may want to quote this so sjp can see it....


A 14 year old boy get's caught up with the wrong bunch.... he goes out with them one afternoon and plays "look-out" while they preform a few b&E's in the neighbourhood.

When he get's home, his parents question the new "toys" he sudenly has, they find out within the hour what happened that afternoon. They call the police and the following day take the boy to the local station house and turn him in along with the "toys". The boy is finger printed, and charged. Naturally, because of the boys age, social services is called and get's involved. The boy is given a court date 4 months down the road. The parents inform him that he is grounded to the house except for school, with the grounding to be reviewed after the court date.

What's your opinion of how the parents handled this problem and the consequence they decided on?

In my opinion the quality of the resolution are displayed in the reaction in the months following for the boy. If he settles down and stops the behaviour, understanding why it's wrong then I would say it's very successful. If on the other hand gives Dad the finger and going out to hang out with his new friends, sterner measures are required.

On first blush I would say the response is reasonable if the parent's, knowing their kid, felt it would be the right one.

 

[DaSleeper]

I've got a senario for ya's....someone may want to quote this so sjp can see it....


A 14 year old boy get's caught up with the wrong bunch.... he goes out with them one afternoon and plays "look-out" while they preform a few b&E's in the neighbourhood.

When he get's home, his parents question the new "toys" he sudenly has, they find out within the hour what happened that afternoon. They call the police and the following day take the boy to the local station house and turn him in along with the "toys". The boy is finger printed, and charged. Naturally, because of the boys age, social services is called and get's involved. The boy is given a court date 4 months down the road. The parents inform him that he is grounded to the house except for school, with the grounding to be reviewed after the court date.

What's your opinion of how the parents handled this problem and the consequence they decided on?

To me ..It depends on circumstances...is it that boy's first time...the fact that he spilled the beans within the hour would indicate so...
Depending on a lot of factors...the grounding is definitely not excessive...bringing him to the police instead of just returning the goods could stay on his record for life....if that's is first bad deed in his life..
There is realy no right or wrong way unless you live the situation yourself.

 

[karrie]

:roll:Tell that to the 29 year old woman who had two children by her abductor (in the news recently).

Exactly. 'psychological punishment', as it was put in the post I replied to, and removal of privileges, can come in a wide variety of forms too. Parents shaming their kids for what they did can do damage, and, like spankings, can be taken into the realm of abuse. Removing privileges, like spankings, can range out of control and there have been cases of parents not allowing their children bathroom access, food, or water. Simply looking at it in terms of 'to hit or not to hit' is oversimplifying parenting. Spankings aren't the issue... out of control parents are. And those who don't spank don't necessarily have the market on stability cornered.

 

[karrie]

What's your opinion of how the parents handled this problem and the consequence they decided on?

It's the route I'd have taken.

 

[TenPenny]

And, it seems there are some that connected life to games, and can't figure
out, unless someone sits them down in a kindergarten room, and teaches
them, that we are talking about life, not games..

But a hockey game is part of life, is it not?

 

[AnnaG]

What might have been excessive?

Lost track of the topic already? Their actions upon discovering what their boy had been up to.

 

[CDNBear]

YouTube - Russell Peters, Beating the kids

Nuff said...

 

[karrie]

Lost track of the topic already? Their actions upon discovering what their boy had been up to.

Their actions had multiple parts though... I think he was curious which part you thought might have been excessive.

 

[AnnaG]

To me ..It depends on circumstances...is it that boy's first time...the fact that he spilled the beans within the hour would indicate so...
Depending on a lot of factors...the grounding is definitely not excessive...bringing him to the police instead of just returning the goods could stay on his record for life....if that's is first bad deed in his life..
There is realy no right or wrong way unless you live the situation yourself.

Last I heard, a minor's record cannot be used in court after they reach the age of majority. I think that is why some courts allow minors to be charged as adults.

 

[AnnaG]

Their actions had multiple parts though... I think he was curious which part you thought might have been excessive.

Oh. He initially said, "What's your opinion of how the parents handled this problem and the consequence they decided on? " so I was replying to the entire set of actions by the parents. Either way I don't know the parents nor the child so all I can say is it was either appropriate action or it was excessive.

 

[gerryh]

Lost track of the topic already? Their actions upon discovering what their boy had been up to.

Ok....can you elaborate on that?

 

[AnnaG]

Ok....can you elaborate on that?

Let me see, their actions were: questioning, calling the police, and grounding the boy. It was either appropriate or excessive depending upon the parents and the boy. If the boy had a disability, for instance, it would seem excessive to me. If not, it was probably appropriate.

 

[Cannuck]

Children aren't wise enough to understand most discipline issues. Therefore those that don't spank have to rely solely on psychological abuse.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I just want to add that intelligence, education, and wisdom, are three very different things.

 

[Cannuck]

I just want to add that intelligence, education, and wisdom, are three very different things.

For one thing, they're spelled differently.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

wow, you sure are being obtuse today. Confinement is the prevention of parts of a normal life, such as mobility, choice of food, choice of recreation, etc. If you confine someone you deprive them of things. If you take away a child's tv, you deprive them of that. The act is the same. The essential difference is the intent.

So in your opinion, denying television to children is the same as forcibly kidnapping them and imprisoning them for several years (and presumably deserves the same punishment for the perpetrators). Fascinating.

So are you going to ask your Messiah to pass a law making denying children of television a criminal offense (with the same penalties as kidnapping and imprisoning somebody)? Harper is always eager to pass laws handing out stiffer and stiffer prison sentences to criminals. Law and order is the standard vote getter for conservatives, it is their staple.

perhaps Harper could put it in his election platform, for the upcoming election.


Anna, so does that also mean that you would never deprive your children of television, because it will cause them psychological harm? Presumably you don’t have a problem with spanking, I assume that does no harm (according to you).