Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / March 2005

Come one, come all.

No group exists here, outside of the compulsives. "Cohort" is a term
applied by those that have no argument and wish to marginalize those
who do with a group label, just as some folks refer to "niggers" to
advance their argument that black people are a monolitic body of lower
class people.

Guess that let's me out of being one of your "Cohort" group then,
doesn't it? I have very clearly stated that I'm against anti spanking
law.

And no one here has ever advocated for what you claim. That's your
fantasy, and of course lie, about other people and their intent.

In what way is this group "affiliated?" That sounds like something
official. Is agreeing on some points and issues now recognized as
officially "affiliated?"

That would make for a very confusing world, should everyone that agrees
on some issues were "affiliated."

Where has anyone in this ng advocated against the use of physical
restraints for legitimate non punitive purposes?

And how would a nonspanking law, or the removal of laws now giving
parents the right to spank remove their right to use physical
restraints?

Your definitions are nothing if not obscure. You clutter and fog the
issue admirably, just as one would expect from a compulsive.

I think you are trying to elevate yourself to something you are most
certainly not...honorable.

And what "proactive means" are you referring to?

Is not a law "proactive?" I mean it exists before the act upon which
it's enforced.

Your logic is a curious thing, especially given that you questioned
mine recently. 0:->

Absolutely.

Cute. You are blind or lying or ignorant. It did not indicate the
increase of violence by teens. Why would you not provide the URL? You
must have gone there to pick out that percentage, or you must have made
it up. Assuming you didn't make it up, why no easy access to the data
you cite?

A percentage, by the way, would be directly related to the number of
teens in the population, which of course, has increased. Now if you
were discussing "rates" we might have a bit more respect for your
'logic' <mmmmphhhh>.

An information bulletin from

http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/204608/intro.html

They have some very interesting things to say about this percentage of
violent crime by juveniles, and reporting criteria by the FBI. You do,
of course know the difference between arrests and convictions, right?
It's a major issue in how crimes are cleared for counting, with arrests
being far higher than cleared cases.

But here's another interesting point, and we presume, given the agency,
they are using standard FBI data:
"
In 2002, for the eighth consecutive year, the rate of juvenile arrests
for Violent Crime Index offensesmurder, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assaultdeclined. Specifically, between 1994 and 2002, the
juvenile arrest rate for Violent Crime Index offenses fell 47%. As a
result, the juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 2002 was at the
lowest level since at least 1980. From its peak in 1993 to 2002, the
juvenile arrest rate for murder fell 72%.
"

Gee, "fell," "declined?"

I guess you and the reporters of crime speak different dialects an in
yours, fell and declined mean "67% increase in teen violence."

You must be pegging this 67% to something, goober. Care to give us a
bit more access to your source, by actual page you lifted this
percentage from?

Could it have been:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec2.pdf   ?

This was especially facinating, since it comes from the source you
cite, though I'm not sure if it's the same report you quote:

"
The 10-year trend data for robbery
arrests showed that the number of robbery
arrests in 2003 declined 25.0 percent
from the 1994 number. An examination
of that trend data by age showed
that the number of arrests of juveniles
for robbery dropped 43.1 percent and
the number of arrests of adults fell 16.9
percent. (See Table 32.)
"

Now here's a peculiar bit of FBI "lore" on how the counting is done:
"
Clearances and Juveniles
When an offender under the age of 18
is arrested or cited to appear in juvenile
court or before other juvenile authorities,
the UCR Program considers that
incident as a clearance by arrest. However,
according to Program denitions,
clearances involving both adult and
juvenile offenders are classied as adult
clearances.
"

In other words, in clearing for tabulation, juveniles, unlike adults,
are counted as having committed ("cleared") the offense if arrested or
cited..."cited" mind you, not arrested, not convicted, simply cited.
That would mean a slapping in the HS cafeteria would go down as a
violent crime, and counted as arrested, even if only cited, not even
proven. Hmmm. A bit of ageism against teens....like that's new and not
recordable clear back to the days of ancient Greece and Rome. 0:->

Then there's this bit that seems to be out of congruence with your
claim:

"The
number of juveniles arrested for aggravated
assault in 2003 showed virtually no change from the previous years
rate
(+ 0.1 percent)."

.... "juveniles arrested for aggravated assault declined 9.1 percent
from the 1999 total and 25.8 percent from the 1994 number.
(See Tables 32, 34, and 36.)
"
The figure above are still referencing 2003 for comparative increase or
decrease.

And they keep using that annoying, to you, terminology, "declined." I
wonder if that means increse in "Elbonian" your native tongue?

Hmmm... I wonder where that 67% of yours actually came from, and what
it actually measured. And why you didn't point us by active link
directly to it?

Well, I've tried a search for 67% on this huge report from the UCR,
FBI, and nothing turned up. So your claim isn't in it, at any rate, and
it's a 2004 report as I recall.

We spank, according to you folks, about 98% of all children, and you
wonder about out of control kids?

I think you might start wondering what really caused them to go out of
control.

The boys I worked with in mental health were all, without exception (my
caseload for four year totaled 35 boys) spanked, and behaved very well
indeed, when they discovered and integrated that we were not going to
use CP on them. Imagine that...mentally ill kids got it.

They didn't, you might be surprized to note, behave well upon entry
into programs to help them overcome the results of spanking.

I wonder what relatively normal kids would have done and how fast they
would have gotten it?

Claims are not proof. How many do you know of that got probation or
lite sentences for murder as compared to adults that did?

I think you are resorting to propagandistic hyperbole for effect.

In fact juveniles are disproportionately given very tough sentences in
many states. Some kids have gone to jail for five to ten for minor
sexual offenses. Sentencing is notoriously hard on kids.

In fact even encarceration punishments and inmate handling exceeds the
constitutional rights afforded adult prisoners, in many cases:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/maryland/Maryland-06.htm

You seem to be a child hater, but then that's consistent with your
history here.

I heartily agree. Do come and join us.

While normally focusing, even a bit, on personalities rather than
issues would be counter productive, but I do suggest, before you think
you are being welcomed by a reputable, honest, helpful, and objective
member of the group, you read into the archives. Not only what Chris C.
has had to say, but what he's removed, and still remains in the
attributions of him by others.

It will help you sort sheep and goats. Trust me.

And you have how many children of your own you don't spank by choice,
Chris?

Come one, come all. Watch the spanking monkeys. No fee, no cover.

And ask yourself, as a way to prepare: "Where is the line between
spanking for discipline and harmful abuse?"

It's sure to come up at some point.

0:->

Kane