The Curse

I have written about physical punishment countless times before and I’m always horrified with the belief systems of a majority of the people I share this society with. Some people here are very creepy…

* * *

The Curse: Patterns and Spirals
“Forgiveness is another word for letting go.”
-- Matthew Fox

Learning forgiveness, both granting it to others and accepting for ourselves, is one of the primary tools for spiritual growth. For many us, if we are honest enough with ourselves, taking a look at our history is to be plagued with deep-rooted feelings of guilt. We may develop insight, or we finally open to the possibility of being accountable for some of this history, which opens us to a new perspective on life. As human beings, we may also yearn to undo our mistakes. However, many of us carry guilt for years as if we deserved to continue to be punished.

True growth means letting go.

My experience has shown me that it is not until we learn forgiveness that we can stop the patterns that have been handed down from generation to generation. I'll give you an example from my own personal history. I was blessed with two beautiful, intelligent, caring, and courageous parents. The fact that I’m living the way I am today is a testament to their legacy of courage and determination against sometimes great odds. I am very grateful for what they have given me. I honestly believe that if I were to carry my mother on my back for the rest of her life, I still would not be able to repay what she has given me.

However, both of my parents were abused as children. For example, it was a common practice to make children kneel on uncooked rice, or to be hit with a switch until they bled. That’s considered a form of abuse today, thankfully. My father was orphaned by the age of seven, having lost both his parents to disease and was subsequently raised by an older sister who was barely older than him.

I was raised in a home where the specter of violence was always just a moment away until my mother was able to escape that hell. I had seen too much violence before I was even five years old and It took me a long time to even begin to understand all any of it. I loved my parents dearly, as I know they loved me, but there was a lot of abuse and feelings of horror and abandonment in my childhood. I simultaneously adored -- worshipped -- and hated and feared my father, who could be loving and angry to the extreme. My mother, also a sweet and loving person, was quick with her hands, often smacking me in the face, eliciting within me feelings of hatred, which I then felt guilty for harboring.

People today are always amazed at my ability to size people up. I’m often right on point with my ability to analyze people, even if I choose to look at the better side of human nature. I’m no fool -- don't let the suit, tie, and smile fool you. LOL But the fact is that I first learned how to read people as a child. I had to for my own survival because I had to know if the most important person in my life was going to hug or hit me. So I learned to read the body, listen for tones in the voice, check the eyes. I had to become good at this.

Growing up and listening to my mother’s screams or being subjected to physical punishment myself, I would promise myself that I would never re-enact these abuses to others. At those times, I hated my parents and felt guilt about that hate because they were my parents and I was taught that it was wrong for me to feel what I felt.

Years passed and I found myself the primary caregiver to my own son seven years of age. Imagine having me as a father! LOL!!! Whatever! I like to thin that my son and I had a great relationship. I can be very entertaining, to say the least. I think early on my son had a huge crush on me and adored me and I tried my best to develop a relationship based on unconditional love and honesty. I guess only my son can adequately answer whether I was successful or not.

One day, he came home with a report card that I felt wasn’t reflective of his abilities. My son was a gifted child but, as with many brilliant children, he lived in his own world, the “real” world sometimes being very boring. I was the same way. As a child, my mother would send me to the store and I would disappear for hours, causing a family hunt and more often than not, I would be found sitting somewhere daydreaming, or staring at the intricate patterns cracks made on the sidewalk or cloud formations. Anyway, that day I was feeling a little drained and I was feeling very frustrated because here I am, I'm thinking, busting my butt, stressing the importance of education to this kid and he’s not getting it!

So the more I’m talking to him, the angrier I get, and the angrier I get, the more boundaries I trespass. Eventually, as I feed on my frustration and anger, I’m cursing at him, raising my voice, and talking to him in a way I never did before. Heck, in my mind, I want to take him over my knee and spank the shit out of the little fucker.

All the while, there’s a part of me that’s “watching” all of this -- a kind of inner witness -- but my body is in “fight or flight” mode, and I can't stop myself. By now, my son is crying and the more he cries the more frustrated I become and somewhere I know I'm losing control, that I’m going somewhere deep and dark and my son is terrified...

But all I want to do is kick this kid’s butt!

Just then, my son -- voice quavering and his body trembling -- my son pleads to me, “But Pops I don't understand, what do you want me to do? Please, tell me... ”

And my heart just melts right then and there because I look at my son’s face and see the tears welling in those beautiful blue eyes and at that moment I'm overwhelmed with love for my son. At that precise moment, I saw reflected in my son’s eyes, my own inner child and was vividly reminded of the horrors and trauma of my own childhood. It was as if his plea awakened me from an unconscious or deep-rooted rage and I became terrified myself.

Feeling as if I have awakened from a bad dream, all the fears, all the rage dissipates. I take my son in my arms and hold him tight, repeating over and over, “I’m so sorry... ”

You see? This is how patterns are repeated. I often say we're probably playing to scripts that were written generations ago.

That moment served as an awakening or epiphany for me because I realized that I had to find resolution with my own demons. If I didn’t, they would get passed down to my son and those that I love the most. Before I could be the father I wanted to be, I had to forgive my own parents, and let that rage go because that abuse was so powerful a force that it threatened everything that was important in my life.

I had to let go.

Fortunately, I was able to do that -- at least to a certain extent. I was also able to speak to my son about my own fears and how sometimes when he didn't do well in school, my fear was that he would eventually suffer as I did. It was an irrational fear, but that’s where my head went in those moments when I became most angry or fearful. I believe my son is a good man today, having gone to college and attempting to fulfill his dreams as a musician. I know now that I never had to hit my son for him to respect me, though sometimes I convinced myself that I had to. I am certain that he respected me, not because I terrified him, or beat him, but because he internalized the value of trust. One day, my brother called me from Florida where my son was staying for a couple of weeks during summer vacation. It was late, about 1 AM on a Friday and I asked if everything was okay. My brother told me that he was at a Blockbuster video rental with my son and that he had offered my son the chance to pick out a porn flick. He told my son that it would be their secret and that I didn’t have to know (grrrrrr… ). My son’s response was, “I can’t do that because my father and I respect each other and that would be wrong.”

You see, it wasn’t fear that stopped my son, but respect and love. Eventually, I learned that my anger stemmed from a deep-rooted fear – probably the fear I experienced as a child in an violent home and community.

Did I become the “model” father after that day? No!!! LOL!!! But that day I began to try understand to importance of forgiveness and the practice of letting go because letting go is not just something you do, it's something you become.

Forgiveness is not saying that what you or someone else did is OK. Rather, forgiveness is a state of being in which you allow yourself to get rid of the fear and rage through a long and slow, but necessary process. The price you pay for not letting go is pain, not just for yourself, but for those closest to you.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

Captial Punishment is Wrong

Hola Everybody,
The following is in reference to the case of Troy Davis, an unfairly convicted human being who is scheduled to be executed in two weeks… If you’re not familiar with the story, Troy Davis was convicted of murdering a Georgia police officer in 1991. Nearly twenty years later, Davis remains on death row -- even though the case against him has fallen apart.

The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state’s non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.

Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.

In addition, nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles, the leading alternative suspect.

* * *

-=[ Capital Punishment: Immoral and Ineffective ]=-

The other night, during the GOP debate, the biggest applause line came when Texas Governor Rick Perry, a man who has sanctioned the deaths of 234 people (more than any other governor in US history), admitted he has never lost a wink of sleep over the matter. There was a couple of telling moments. Earlier in the debate a question about 9/11, and President Obama's decision to attack and execute Osama bin Laden drew not a single clap. The other occurred the following night during President Obama's speech on a proposed jobs bill, when not one single conservative applauded for teachers, firemen, policemen, and collective bargaining.

I can’t say I am surprised by such reactions, since it is well-known that the conservative mindset tends toward authoritarianism. Still, these reactions, I thought to myself, make it entirely possible that today’s conservatives was what Shirley Jackson envisioned when she wrote The Lottery.

Today I am not going into details about the Troy Davis case, though, whatever your feelings about state-sanctioned murder, his case should worry you because it’s likely we’re murdering an innocent man for a crime he didn’t commit. I think we might disagree on the pros and cons of capital punishment, but we should all be in agreement that justice should be, well, just. His case is almost lost but if you care, please sign a petition for the Georgia Board of pardons to consider (click here)

Not long ago, I witnessed a frustrated mother physically punishing one child for hitting his sibling. “You. Don’t. Hit. Your. Bro-ther,” she railed loudly, punctuating each syllable with a hard slap to the head, hand, and butt. It amazes me how many parents, claiming to teach respect and dignity, make no connection to the fact that by hitting a child, you’re also teaching them that the way to get your way is through physical aggression and dominance. I’m not surprised these two children fought incessantly for their mother was reinforcing their behavior.

Since as far back as the nineteenth century, evidence has shown that there is no relationship between severity of punishment and crime rate. Would Americans do the same today if it were demonstrated to them that killing criminals doesn’t make the streets any safer? It’s hard to say, but I seriously doubt it. We’re a vengeful group that worships a vengeful god.

To be sure, many support capital punishment for other reasons. For example, many individuals support electrocuting, poisoning, or shooting people who fail to respect the sacredness of human life. Because you killed someone, we will kill you seems to be the rationale. This is somewhat analogous to the mother teaching her children non-violence by demonstrating violent behavior.

The United States is nearly alone developed nations: Most industrialized nations have come to regard death penalty in the same most regard slavery: it’s morally wrong.

Opponents against the death penalty have more than morality on their side as arguments, however. For example, there is the very real possibility of executing someone innocent and the fact that race (of both convicted and victim) and class is a deciding factor in who actually gets executed. One Texas defendant was executed though his legal counsel fell asleep numerous times during the proceedings. Overwhelmingly, the color of one’s skin is the leading factor in who gets executed (click here). Two of the country’s foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia, for example, which revealed that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes (click here).

But that’s a topic I won’t get into at this moment. Right now, let’s just look at capital punishment’s effects on crime. The question I’m putting forth here is whether capital punishment is a better deterrent than life imprisonment. The answer, according to the evidence, is that the two penalties are both equally ineffective.

At first glance, it seems like common sense that the looming threat of losing one’s life would keep would-be criminals in line. However, a closer, more intelligent, look reveals the majority of murders are committed 1) during a moment of rage, 2) under the influence of drugs and alcohol, or 3) unexpectedly, in the course of committing another crime, such as a robbery. In any of these cases, the killer doesn’t sit down and rationally weigh the pros and cons of what will happen when he is apprehended, so a consideration of the death penalty isn’t going to stop him.

In fact, critical, careful thought about why people break the law not only leads us to question the effectiveness of capital punishment in particular, but also presents a challenge to the idea that incarcerating more people for longer periods of time is a rational response to crime in general. Want proof? Well, put this in your pipe and smoke it for a bit: Despite the fact that the US already incarcerates more people per capita than any other nation in the world, crimes rates are far higher than in most other countries. The conservative/ neoconservative assumption that crime rates were rising because the “costs” of crime in America were too low, is simply put, wrong. In fact, there is credible evidence that shows that too much incarceration serves to destabilize communities, therefore making those communities less safe (click here)

But I digress, the question at hand is whether capital punishment is a better deterrent than life imprisonment. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that capital punishment isn’t a deterrent since criminologists have never found any crime-reducing advantage correlated to capital punishment. Actually, there was one (much-celebrated) study by an economist, Isaac Ehrlich, that claimed to find support for the “fact” that each additional execution resulted in eight prevented homicides. The problem was Ehrlich's study was seriously flawed. It hinged on the on the fact that more murders were committed in the 1960s, when fewer executions were taking place. Of course, he ignored regional differences in the murder rate and other possible reasons for the increase in homicides (the easier availability of guns, for one). In addition, it turns out that other crimes of violence -- the kind that had never been punishable by death -- increased even more rapidly than homicides. Hmmmm...

In any case, other researchers have since tried to look for and failed to find the effects that Ehrlich arrived at. This makes sense considering the fact that economists have a long-standing poor record in research, and this particular study contradicted everything done before then. In 1978, the National Academy of Sciences studied and rejected Ehrlich's methodology (he used a technique known as regression analysis) and concluded that there was no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. In other words, we don’t know. And surely a practice as drastic as killing someone should be considered only if we do know that it makes our lives better and our communities safer.

But researchers being the dense people they are, two leading criminologists decided that just in case regression analyses did make sense in this context, it was worth giving it another shot. They studied homicides and executions in New York State from every month from 1907 to 1963 and found that the death penalty not only failed to reduce the murder rate but actually seemed to increase it. On average, two additional murders occurred during the month following the execution. These researchers extrapolated that the death penalty had what they termed a “brutalizing effect” that was most likely due to criminals taking their cue from the state and imitating its violence. Sounds like parents who beat their children to me!

The researchers summarized, “The lesson of the execution, then, may be to devalue life [and to teach] that it is correct and appropriate to kill those who have gravely offended us.” Another writer put it more succinctly in the Journal of Law and Criminology, “Use of the death penalty by the state, despite an intention to convey the message that killing is unacceptable, may convey the opposite message to the public.” In other words (and as all parents should already know): action speaks louder than words.

Of course, the methodology used by these researchers is as equally debatable as it was when Ehrlich used it. However, it still follows that, using the same methodology, the conclusion remains the same: the death penalty does not act as a deterrent against homicides. In fact, there has never been a case where homicides went up after a state abolished capital punishment. In addition, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be those where the death penalty is used. Other research has found that the same is true globally. One study combed through old crime records to what happened in twelve countries that had abolished capital punishment between 1890 and 1968 and found that “abolition was followed more often than not by absolute decreases in homicide rates.” [emphasis added]

Anyone seriously concerned in making our cities safer would do better to look into the real root causes of crime. The consensus among those who have looked at this issue is that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. Anyone claiming to be pro death under the guise of being pro “law and order,” should probably reconsider their beliefs. And any human being who states they can sleep peacefully after ordering the murder of another human being is quite possibly a sociopath. But we seem to like to elect those into office.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization… Love,

Resources

If you would like to experience a compelling look at the issue moral of capital punishment, check out the film, The Exonerated (click here)

If you're interested in studying crime and punishment without the academic jargon, check out Elliott Currie's Crime and Punishment in America (click here). Prepare to have your opinions, biases, and assumptions challenged.

Not too long ago, the NY Times published an article on how exonerations through the use of DNA are forcing state lawmakers across to the country to change laws (click here).

Capital Punishment

Hola Everybody,
Freakin' Mets! ::sigh::

Starting tomorrow I will post a series of three blogs on racism in America.

Oh yeah! I keep forgetting to mention this! Apparently, there's some real talk about Yahoo doing away with 360 in favor of the bullshit Mash. Mash really sucks dead dawg farts.

What I will do in the event that 360 is done away with is create my own free site. I've had one before, at one point having about close to 100 members. we were able to organize a big picnic for site members through that site.

What I will try to do is offer a space where some of the community feeling can be transposed. Membership will be free and all one will have to do to join is register. I'm not interested in making money! I think there's a great little group here on my friends' list and I would like to maintain that feeling.

The site will feature pages for people to post or (more likely) connect their blogs, but the main feature will be a message-board divided into different forums. Think of a quick comments section but a lot better (with functions to post images, music, videos, etc.). For example, one forum will be for members to interact -- fun stuff and fake drama. Then there will be forums for different topics -- anything from art to politics to erotica. members who request it will have their own self-titled forums.

There are other features I will have, but I won't disclose it here because then someone else will steal my ideas. The site will be for open-minded people who want to connect in meaningful ways. that bullshit it's just Yahoo mentality won't float there. Any unnecessary and childish drama will be strongly discouraged. I will also have a feature in which people won't be able to right click and steal pics.

While I want to be inclusive as possible, no one will be reprimanded for nudity!

There are a lot of very talented people on my list and I will also offer pages (for free) to people who make things or are creative. Poetry, art, crafts -- whatever. I would really love it if people would come on board and make it our own cyber community. More details to come, so stay tuned...

* * *

-=[ Capital Punishment: Is it a Good Way to Keep the Murder Rate Down? ]=-

Not that long ago, I witnessed a frustrated mother physically punishing one child for hitting his sibling. "You. Don't. Hit. Your. Bro-ther," she said loudly, punctuating each syllable with a hard slap to the on the head, hand, and butt. It amazes me how many parents, claiming to teach respect and peacefulness, make no connection to the fact that by hitting a child, you're also teaching them that the way to get your way is through physical aggression and dominance. I'm not surprised these two children fought incessantly -- their mother was reinforcing their behavior.

Since as far back as the nineteenth century, the evidence has shown that there is no relationship between severity of punishment and crime rate. Would Americans do the same today if it were proved to them that killing criminals doesn't make the streets any safer? It's hard to say, but I seriously doubt it. We're a vengeful group.

To be sure, many support capital punishment for other reasons. For example, many individuals support electrocuting, poisoning, or shooting people for failing to understand the sacredness of human life. Because you killed someone, we will kill you. This is somewhat analogous to the mother teaching her children non-violence by demonstrating violent behavior.

Kewl.

The United States in nearly alone in this among developed nations: Most industrialized nations have come to regard death penalty in the same most regard slavery: it's morally wrong.

Opponents to the death penalty have more than morality on their side as arguments, such as the very real possibility of executing someone innocent and the fact that race (of both convicted and victim) plays a huge in deciding factor in who actually gets executed.

But right now, let's just look at the effects on crime. The question here is whether capital punishment is a better deterrent than life imprisonment. The answer, according to the evidence, is that the two penalties are equally effective. Or rather, to be more honest about it, both are equally ineffective.

At first glance, it seems like common sense that the threat of losing their own lives would keep would-be criminals in line. However, a closer, more intelligent, look reveals that that the majority of murders are committed 1) during a moment of rage, 2) under the influence of drugs and alcohol, or 3) unexpectedly, in the course of committing another crime, such as a robbery. In any of these cases, the killer doesn't sit down and rationally weigh the pros and cons of what will happen when he is apprehended, so the death penalty isn't going to stop him.

In fact, intelligent, careful thought about why people break the law not only leads us to question the effectiveness of capital punishment, but also presents a challenge to the idea that throwing more people for longer periods of time is a rational response to crime in general. Want proof? Well, put this in your pipe and smoke it for a bit: Despite the fact that the US already incarcerates more people per capita than any other nation in the world, crimes rates are far higher than in most other countries. The neo-conservative assumption that crime rates were rising because the "costs" of crime in America were too low, is simply put, wrong. The evidence actually shows that too much incarceration serves to destabilize communities.

But I digress, the question at hand is whether capital punishment is a better deterrent than life imprisonment. It shouldn't come as a surprise that capital punishment isn't a deterrent since criminologists have never found any crime-reducing advantage for capital punishment. Actually, there was one (much-celebrated) study by an economist, Isaac Ehrlich, that purported to support the "fact" that each additional execution resulted in eight prevented homicides. Ehrlich's study was seriously flawed. It hinged on the on the fact that more murders were committed in the 1960s, when fewer executions were taking place. Of course, he ignored regional differences in the murder rate and other possible reasons for the increase in homicides (the easier availability of guns, for one). In addition, it turns out that other crimes of violence -- the kind that had never been punishable by death -- increased even more rapidly than homicides. Hmmmm...

In any case, other researchers have since tried to look for and failed to find the effects that Ehrlich got. This makes sense considering the fact that economists have a long-standing poor record in research, and this particular study contradicted everything done before then. In 1978, the National Academy of Sciences studied and rejected Ehrlich's methodology (he used a technique known as regression analysis) and concluded that there was no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. In other words, we don't know. And surely a practice as drastic as killing someone should be considered only if we do know that it makes our lives better.

But researchers being the dense people they are, two leading criminologists decided that just in case regression analyses did make sense, it was worth giving it another shot. They studied homicides and executions in New York State form every month from 1907 to 1963 and found that the death penalty not only failed to reduce the murder rate but actually seemed to increase it. On average, two additional murders occurred during the month following the execution. These researchers extrapolated that the death penalty had what they termed a "brutalizing effect" that was most likely due to criminals taking their cue from the state and imitating its violence. Sounds like parents who beat their children to me!

The researchers concluded that "The lesson of the execution, then, may be to devalue life [and to teach] that it is correct and appropriate to kill those who have gravely offended us." another writer put it more succinctly in the Journal of Law and Criminology," Use of the death penalty by the state, despite an intention to convey the message that killing is unacceptable, may convey the opposite message to the public. In other words, as all parents should already know: action speaks louder than words.

Of course, the methodology used by these researchers is equally as debatable as it was when Ehrlich used it. However, it still follows that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent against homicides. In fact, there has never been a case where homicides went up after a state abolished capital punishment. In addition, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be those where the death penalty is used. Other research has found that the same is true globally. they dug out old crime records to what happened in twelve countries that had abolished capital punishment between 1890 and 1968 and found that "abolition was followed more often than not by absolute decreases in homicide rates."

Anyone seriously concerned in making our cities safer would do better to look into the real root causes of crime. The consensus among those who have looked at this issue is that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder.

Love,

Eddie

Resources

If you would like to experience a compelling look at the issue moral of capital punishment, check out the film, The Exonerated (click here)

If you're interested in studying crime and punishment without the jargon, check out Elliott Currie's Crime and Punishment in America. Prepare to have your opinions, biases, and assumptions challenged.

The NY times has an article today on how exonerations through the use of DNA are forcing state lawmakers across to the country to change laws (click here).

The Cruelest Abuse

¡Hola! Everybody...
Yes, I do actually think feminism is for everybody, not just for women. Enjoy the start of a new work week, people.

* * *

-=[ Punishment ]=-

This is gonna hurt me more than you

How many of us heard those words while growing up? I know I heard it many times. I wasn’t a bad child in the sense that I got into trouble. I was more a “questioner” – I had to have a “why.” My mother was old school, asking for a reason was equivalent to disrespect, and so her response was usually, Because I said so,” or, if I pressed too hard, a smack, a chancletazo*, in some cases a “whoopin’,” or a genuine beat down. Like the time I managed to create a swimming pool out of our tenement apartment bathroom. That was a crime deserving of a beat down.

I wasn’t bad, just creative. LOL!

Many of us remember getting beat downs and whoopins. My mother actually made us fetch the belt and make us smell it as a warning. Then people wonder why today I like the smell of leather and spanking women’s behinds, LOL. Most of my young life was spent in power struggles with my mother. I would take her physical punishment, but all it did was make me want to do more of whatever it was I was being punished for.

When I was a boy, my father never touched me, he spoke to me, respected me, and inspired me to create higher standards for myself. If my father asked me to do something, I did it happily. My mother, on the other hand, had to hit me constantly. Her favorite form of punishment? Smacking my face. To this day, I have issues with anyone touching my face. To this day I sometimes still reflexively flinch from a lover's caress.

Some parents, and this is especially true in communities of color, argue that newer forms of discipline, like “time outs” don’t work. They argue that the old tradition, derived from the Biblical dogma of spare the rod, spoil the child, offered an effective physical discipline, that when done correctly will only have to be enforced a few times. The adherents of physical discipline often point out that all they need is to give a look.

Others, and I happen to be one of them, respond that the punishment methods used by our parents were created out of anger and based on religious dogma, personal frustration, and a lack of respect for children as people. I also differentiate between punishment and discipline -- the two are not the same.

Who’s right?

He who spareth the rod, hateth his son: but he who loveth him correcteth him betimes.”

-- Proverbs 13:24

Some Bible readers argue that this adage has been taken out of context -- that it was not originally intended as advocating physical punishment. Whatever the case may be this is the way it’s been commonly understood. Today, I argue from the vantage point of a minority since there’s a plurality in America that disagrees with my stance. So it makes sense to explore whether this statement makes any sense.

There are very few instances of absolutes in the study of human behavior. However, even a cursory glance at the literature suggests that no other “common sense” saying has done so much harm to so many people. I can’t think of any other proverb that’s founded on so ignorant an understanding of human development.

Does physical punishment “teach the kid a lesson”? Absolutely. It teaches that “the way to solve problems is to beat up others,” as one researcher put it. Now am aware that there different degrees of punishment, not all “rods” are the same. There’s a big difference between a light tapping on a child’s behind and the sort of punishment that causes bruising (what’s that you say: you have caused your child to bruise? That’s abuse and don’t let me catch you doing it!). However studies spanning over fifty years by many different people have clearly demonstrated that slapping, spanking, or otherwise using violence on children is never necessary and always potentially harmful.

Studies going back as far as the 1950s and 1960s show conclusively that physical (corporal) punishment produces children who are more, not less, aggressive than their peers. A study conducted in 1960 studied 875 eight year-olds and found a clear-cut relationship between the severity of the physical punishment they received and how aggressive their peers judged them to be. Twenty two years later, the researchers tracked down some of the same subjects and found that many of the aggressive children had grown into aggressive adults. Even more disturbing, many of them were now using physical punishment on their own children.

Of course, you’re probably saying that you turned out fine and that your children seem to be okay. Growing up in an abusive household doesn’t guarantee that one will eventually become an abuser. Still, even so-called “acceptable” levels of physical punishment can result in perpetuating violence and unhappiness. Research continues to find:

A large survey revealed that people who had been punished most severely as teenagers were four times more likely to beat their spouses than people whose parents had never hit them at all.

Another study found that alcoholics and people suffering from depression were much more likely than other individuals to have been physically punished when they were children.

A more recent study found that three to five year-olds who were spanked by their parents were more likely than other children to be aggressive while playing at a day care center. Watching violent TV programs and playing with toys such as toy guns was also found to be related to aggression, but not as strongly as physical punishment was.

Apart for the long-term damage it may cause, physical punishment is simply ineffective. It may suppress the misbehavior (or what the parents deems misbehavior) in the short run, but ultimately it promotes little more than a determination to avoid getting caught. The most effective way to raise children who respect others is to respect and care for them, to explain what they’ve done wrong and why it’s wrong, and to work with them in creating solutions to the problems.

I have a colleague who’s at her wits end as to why her 4 year-old daughter has been kicked out of two day care centers and pre-school. My colleague is only now beginning to listen to what I’ve been telling her for years -- that she needs to stop using physical force as a way to raise her daughter.

My brother once called me in the middle of the night. I had sent my son to Florida to stay with him for summer vacation and he calls and says, “Yo, I gotta tell you something. I’m here at Blockbusters with your son, and I told him that he could watch any movie he wanted to watch. I even took him by the porn section.”

By now, I’m fuming.

My brother went on, “Anyway, even though I told him he could watch whatever he wanted and I would never tell you, he said he couldn’t do it because his father trusts him and he wouldn’t want to do anything to mess that up. You got a good kid, Eddie,” and he hung up.

To me, that was the greatest thing. My son had internalized positive values, which meant that he would behave in accordance with certain values and principles even when I wasn’t around to punish him. I didn’t teach this to my son through coercion, or threats of physical pain. This was done through a long and painful process of mutual discovery, modeling behavior, and actually teaching my son critical thinking skills (and fuck you if you tell your kid not to smoke pot, but you smoke like a champ!).

This is not so for children raised on a diet of fear and violence. In fact, it could be that hitting children makes things worse even for toddlers. As reported in the journal Developmental Psychology, “infants of physically punishing mothers showed the lowest levels of compliance and were most likely to manipulate breakable objects.” An earlier study of more than 800 toddlers and their mothers discovered that “the more frequent the punishment for the child” -- especially physical punishment and especially administered by the mother -- “the more severe were all the behavior problem syndromes studied in the child.” Even if the punishment didn’t cause these behavior problems, it damn sure didn’t eliminate them.

Not too long ago, I watched as a mother of two young children hit one child for hitting the other. Great! It’s true that a huge number of Americans choose this way of dealing with a child who deliberately hurts someone else. Apparently, it’s “common sense” to believe that the best way to teach that hurting is wrong is by hurting. Despite of the overwhelming research showing just how harmful and ineffective physical punishment is, an overwhelming majority of Americans still resort to using physical punishment.

Why? Well, one reason I hear a lot is that real harm is caused by child abuse -- what those other people do – not by “normal” spanking. Perhaps they lack self-control to deal with their children more positively and productively. Perhaps, they have themselves been raised this way and see nothing wrong with it, and rather than confront the implications of what was done to them at a tender age, prefer to treat their children the same way. Whatever the reason, be clear that we live in a different world today. Children have a heightened awareness of the consequences for punishing the “old fashioned way” and with access to 1-800 numbers and cell phones, hitting your kid just might be more painful to you.

Love,

Eddie

Resources

Miller, A. (1990). For your own good: Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence (3rd ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (click here)

Gilligan, J. (2003). Shame, guilt, and violence. Social Research: An International Quarterly of Social Sciences, 4(70), 1149-1180. (click here)