Judge Spanks Truant Teens

[Potoooooooo]

http://www.kveo.com/news/local/19579199.html
In a Los Fresnos courtroom kids who skip school are being paddled by their parents, as an alternative to paying a pricey fine. Now this spanking punishment is causing quite a stir.Paddling or paying, that's the choice, Judge Gustavo Garza is giving parents and now there's a lawsuit, against him, because of this spanking punishment.

[Trout]

Well that is certainly a bizarre story.

I can't see this guy getting far with the idea but interesting.

[mga]

http://www.kveo.com/news/local/19579199.html
In a Los Fresnos courtroom kids who skip school are being paddled by their parents, as an alternative to paying a pricey fine. Now this spanking punishment is causing quite a stir.Paddling or paying, that's the choice, Judge Gustavo Garza is giving parents and now there's a lawsuit, against him, because of this spanking punishment.

they had a choice...pay or paddle. the law suit is frivolous.

maybe he should eliminate the paddling and double or triple the fines.

[general_koffi]

The state would appear to be coercing parents into beating their children.

Bad.

[Trout]

Bad.

Why?

[mga]

The state would appear to be coercing parents into beating their children.

Bad.

there's a difference between beating a child and paddling him/her.

[Trout]

Yeah I don't care for the way "beating" is thrown around with all of the tacit implications.

Either way though, I tend to think paddlings for truancy is a bit much but if you think about it, what young people (well maybe people in general) hate most is embarassment and much more than some fine or what have you that they would not likely have to pay themselves anyway. It sort of goes back to the idea of if it would be better to have a kid paddled/embarassed/etc as a sort of very short term and probably effective motivator versus having them placed into some sort of juvie center or program where they would be exposed to kids with real problems, become part of the "system", etc.

Not specifically for truancy issues but as a general idea I'm not so sure it should be discounted simply because society has moved far away from the idea of it being acceptable. I guess I have just heard various older adults speak of being punished in similar ways and that it didn't really "harm" them but I haven't heard an adult speak of being say sent to a "youth center" for a summer with any positive memories.

[Potoooooooo]

I know we have teens that post here. I wonder what they think of this:huh:

[lpetrich]

I think I'd prefer something nonviolent.

Like the pillory.
Or the dunce cap.

The point is to humiliate such troublemakers, not beat them up.

[mga]

I think I'd prefer something nonviolent.

Like the pillory.
Or the dunce cap.

The point is to humiliate such troublemakers, not beat them up.

no one is getting "beat up". the humiliation of simply being spanked in front of the world should do the trick.

[nixon]

Some kids just need their asses kicked. But not for truancy per se. For truancy, I'd say make the kid prove that they don't need the schooling that they are missing. If they pass that test, then let them be. If they don't, then kick their ass.

[general_koffi]

there's a difference between beating a child and paddling him/her.

There may be a difference in the emotions that are conjured when one uses one term or the other in common parlance, but do I really have to resort to a dictionary definition here?

beat·en or beat, beat·ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly.

Not specifically for truancy issues but as a general idea I'm not so sure it should be discounted simply because society has moved far away from the idea of it being acceptable. I guess I have just heard various older adults speak of being punished in similar ways and that it didn't really "harm" them but I haven't heard an adult speak of being say sent to a "youth center" for a summer with any positive memories.

This isn't the choice that is being offered.

The parents of the offenders are given the choice to:

A. Pay a fine.
B. Beat their kid in public.

Ergo, the parents are being coerced into beating their children. The law in question makes no provision for incarceration.

Arguments against extra-judicial corporal punishment aside, the state should not be in the business of coercing parents to exercise public violence against their own children. If one would not restrict such activities, then at the very least... The state should not endorse it, leave alone coerce parents into doing it.

[Trout]

A. Pay a fine.
B. Beat their kid in public.

Dictionaries aside, I suppose this particular case is a problem yes. Besides your points, the way it is being structured would also impact poor kids far more.

To the larger issue(s) though I think it should be considered.

[general_koffi]

Dictionaries aside, I suppose this particular case is a problem yes. Besides your points, the way it is being structured would also impact poor kids far more.

Exactly.

To the larger issue(s) though I think it should be considered.

Some kids just need their asses kicked. But not for truancy per se. For truancy, I'd say make the kid prove that they don't need the schooling that they are missing. If they pass that test, then let them be. If they don't, then kick their ass.

Habitual truancy which results in failing grades happens when the person can't draw a logical line between getting good marks at school and later success in life.

Even if violence gets the person to stay in the classroom, only relatively smart people are capable of passing school by sheer merit of having been present in the lessons. Such people are usually smart enough to have attended class in the first place.

In this instance, corporal punishment is a hallmark of bad parenting. There are deeper problems involved if your son or daughter habitually misses school, and they require a more precise inquisition than the application of violence.

A person who was beaten into attending school will not magically become a motivated adult upon turning eighteen. I've heard bad parents claim that it "isn't their problem" from that point, but then that begs the question as to why they bothered in the first place. Was it simply to satisfy social expectations or to avoid fines applied by truancy laws?

As far as the state is concerned, it should provide an environment in which truancy is not engendered, but I question its jurisdiction and ability to force parents into forcing their children to attend school.

[muidiri]

Honestly - I have no ethical problem with spanking children. Pain and embarrassment are extremely powerful behavioral motivators.

Granted, you don't want to use *only* negative reinforcement... but there is nothing wrong with using it in conjunction with positive reinforcements. Provided of course, that the spankings are reasonable - they're intended to sting for a couple of hours, not bruise for a couple of days.

[nogods4me]

Is it really spanking when you are hitting them with a piece of wood.
If I were to hit someone 6 times with a baseball bat in the ass, would I get in trouble?

[Nice Squirrel]

Spanking threads have a place in MF&P. Off we go.

[Trout]

If I were to hit someone 6 times with a baseball bat in the ass, would I get in trouble?

Never played baseball I see.

[nuntooshinydat]

The fine is $500. It also says she would be found guilty of a criminal misdemeanor. Now what does that entail? So did they pay or spank?

[Sabine Grant]

Serving community service hours IMO is far more productive than paddling kids.And I am also concerned that such judge is sending the message that the state sanctions such absence of productivity.

Further added measures in view of the reality that children who show a pattern of truancy are often facing internal family issues (socio economical problems): assigning a "big brother" or "big sister" who can mentor the child into self motivation. Ordering counseling for the parents/legal custodians and the child. Reviewing the case every 6 months.

Using positive reinforcement methods to prompt behavioral modification with the child. Paddling or spanking the child certainly does not strike me as positive reinforcement.

[Simen]

That's truly stupid. Since I think the state should not apply violence (no matter how minor) unless forced, I don't think it should provide an incentive to do it either.

Honestly - I have no ethical problem with spanking children. Pain and embarrassment are extremely powerful behavioral motivators.

So fucking what if it's effective (something I have yet to see proof of). It's still pain and embarassment. Pain and embarassment, especially the former, aren't proper ways to solve problems. It's not something you want to teach kids.

[Trout]

Further added measures in view of the reality that children who show a pattern of truancy are often facing internal family issues (socio economical problems): assigning a "big brother" or "big sister" who can mentor the child into self motivation. Ordering counseling for the parents/legal custodians and the child. Reviewing the case every 6 months.

Perhaps but is this not an idea working against itself as economic problems could be increased by mandated counseling, etc? Unless of course, the state wishes to pay for it and I don't think that's going to be popular.

[Sabine Grant]

Further added measures in view of the reality that children who show a pattern of truancy are often facing internal family issues (socio economical problems): assigning a "big brother" or "big sister" who can mentor the child into self motivation. Ordering counseling for the parents/legal custodians and the child. Reviewing the case every 6 months.

Perhaps but is this not an idea working against itself as economic problems could be increased by mandated counseling, etc? Unless of course, the state wishes to pay for it and I don't think that's going to be popular. If redirected by the court to counseling services provided by the County Dept of Families and Children Services, there should be no cost imposed on the family.

[Trout]

Yeah like I said though, wouldn't be a popular new cost for the state.

[Sabine Grant]

Yeah like I said though, wouldn't be a popular new cost for the state. But it is not a "new cost" to the state, meaning tax payers. DCFS does provide such services. They also provide supervision through their social workers. I am not sure what the issue is.

[Trout]

Yeah like I said though, wouldn't be a popular new cost for the state. But it is not a "new cost" to the state, meaning tax payers. DCFS does provide such services. They also provide supervision through their social workers. I am not sure what the issue is.

If so apparently none from one perspective.

[Sabine Grant]

But it is not a "new cost" to the state, meaning tax payers. DCFS does provide such services. They also provide supervision through their social workers. I am not sure what the issue is.

If so apparently none from one perspective. IMo if you want to question the ethical aspect of tax payers contributing to social services meant to fix other people's problems, yes you can challenge my proposals. But in the sole context of the OP, there should be no issue.

[1997]

As long as there is a choice, I care not. The real objection is that they are being punished at all.

[Trout]

But in the sole context of the OP, there should be no issue.

Didn't I just conceed a point already here?

All I'm doing is pointing out the likely potential problem people may have with public monies being used this way and very possibly an increase in said allocation.

I'm not arguing jack with you.

[Sabine Grant]

But in the sole context of the OP, there should be no issue.

Didn't I just conceed a point already here?

All I'm doing is pointing out the likely potential problem people may have with public monies being used this way and very possibly an increase in said allocation.

I'm not arguing jack with you. I was explaining the nuance between challenging one versus the other. :huh:

[Ljoilae]

I think it's just going to make the kids worse, they'll hate their parents for choosing to humiliate them. Of course, the kids didn't have to do whatever they did wrong and it's really their fault but few teenagers see things that way.