POLL: Child upbringing; mercy before justice or justice before mercy?

Remove all ads!

What is your opinion on the way children should be handled: should they be surrounded with gentle tenderness and infinite compassion even until they grow adult, or should they rather receive a preparatory grounding in rampant capitalism? Or perhaps something in between? Myself, while generally am in favour of compassion and gentleness and being a good person, I don't think it works too well with children or subordinates if overdone. Failures and shortcomings are one thing but when such weakness becomes indulgence and is purchased at the cost of causing inconvenience, nuisance or even suffering to other people.

For example, it's one thing if your child brings home another failing grade for forgetting to do homework or comes ten minutes late where you told him to meet you, and it's a completely different thing if he enjoys being loud, gross or aggressive. I don't believe there's any room for mercy if a teenage boy comes home swearing, belching and farting and reaches for food without washing hands. Or if he enjoys beating his younger siblings. Or, on the other hand, if the younger siblings fancy telling parents made up stories about the older ones. Or when bullying happens in school.

Besides, mercy and compassion is a tricky thing. Children will always notice if one of them receives more of it and it will be abused. The favoured one will likely start lying and undermining the others' position. The others will likely start hating and bullying him as a matter of fact sooner or later, while choosing him to be the face of the group when requesting something from parents. Plus, favoured children tend to consider parents suckers, while disfavoured ones will be prone to regard them as arbitrary despots. Either way, authority and respect is lost.

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of zoological capitalism or justice understood as having and using rights regardless of how it makes other people feel. It surely isn't good if parents play judges or prosecutors on people. Prove what you say, guilty until proven innocent, tariff of punishments for most common infractions hanging above the dinner table and so on. That's not good. Vigilantism is not good in families and it's not justice, anyway. One must be careful, especially in highly capitalistic societies, to teach children to see farther than "my constitutional right" and give more of themselves than just the lip service and surface compliance necessary to avoid punishment. Plus, people who play judges and prosecutors act on my nerves in all setting anyway, especially as they invariably tend to lack the qualifications. Especially parents who act like that will almost inevitably end up forcing children to own to infractions they haven't committed, spy on their siblings, come up with lies or tricky excuses and so on; or applying collective liability (everyone's punished until we find the guilty one). I don't like that kind of attitude.

All in all, it's good if parents are compassionate, but if it's the kind of compassion that reaches to all beings. When compassion doesn't serve to disguise fear of confrontation or lack of interest in seeking construstive, long-term solutions. When mercy is not an excuse to avoid doing what needs to be done. Ultimately, children who are brought up in such a way that they aren't forbidden anything or punished for anything, are done harm. They are crippled for life as a result of sweet short-term indulgence. For this reason, I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't more important for parents to be just than to be merciful and compassionate. "It hurts me more than it hurts you," starts making sense.

I don't have any children yet, but I already know I will rather have them go to bed hugry than put up with them touching food without first washing hands, or pushing themselves ahead of others in the queue (guests, grannies, little girls, little boys, the other parent, big girls, big boys -- I have quite a clear vision of the food queue, don't I?) or walking indoors in a cap, "stealing" the remote, or borrowing things without permission and using them up or not returning later, lying, extorting, putting up emotional games, doing harm for fun and so on and so forth. Don't even get me started on control fights. Younger ones are going to do what the older ones say and the latter are going to be reasonable or dad's going to be very insistent. If they pick parents to test their luck on, they will feel it. Gradually, fitting the age, but still. A bit like with my six years younger brother, who, on one day, after a minute of various blocking moves finally got his half-circular hip-kick in the chest that sent him in the air. Everything is good but up to a time.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 21 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Child upbringing; mercy before justice or justice before mercy? (21 votes.)

Child upbringing; mercy before justice or justice before mercy? (Choose 1)
* Mercy before justice - 33% (7)
* Justice before mercy - 19% (4)
* Mercy infinite - 0% (0)
* Justice infinite - 10% (2)
* Just show me the results (aka What have you been smoking, chev?) - 38% (8)

 

Yeah, and while commenting on this, please don't forget to mention if you have kids of your own

I am a bit puzzled by the way Chevalier has formulated the question, though. Mercy and justice do not seem to be concepts which are very useful when talking about kids. Justice sort of requires for the kid to be able to appreciate that he did wrong (which may work for older kids, but for smaller ones...). And mercy... I assume Chev means letting them get away with stuff which is normally a no-no (otherwise, how could you not show mercy to kids?).

Maybe better way of formulating the question is in terms of freedom and discipline. I. e., you let them do whatever they want (encourage their freedom of expression so to say ), or you are a strict disciplinarian.

Well, of course, the best way is somewhere in between. From my limited experience, it is desirable that the kids learn that there are boundaries. My small one thinks is funny to hit us with his fists (we play pretend boxing some times), yell and jump up and down on the furniture, paint the walls, etc... and there is a time for that, but some time we want a little quiet. So he is learning to cool it off if we are not interested (although not fast enough )

 

Of course the basics should be made clear and they should know how to behave but once they reach their teens and especially in their later teens your control over them lessens, they might even have some work and make their own money and not be dependant on what you give them. You could of course do the extreme option and throw them out but I don't see any good coming out of that (I've seen quite a few cases of it).

In any case, when a child does wrong he should be punished and even in the early teens punishment should work, but most teens will rebel against their parents at some point and a strict policy then might only make the situation worse. At that point it's important to stop talking to the teen as a child but as an soon to be adult. This is where many parents are failing imo. They act like their 16 year old children were still six year olds. They don't let them go at parties, if they see the teen drunk all hell will break loose and they will ground him or her for a month. I've seen a few of these cases and mostly they don't end very well. Of course you have to know the line, you can't go too far, if the child tries heroin and the parents just shrug it off and do nothing about it then something is obviously very wrong in the parent-child relationship.

 

I have no children, but I clearly remember being one (not that long ago for me). Again, here is a situation where you need balance, especially for small children. You can begin to build the idea of the consequences of an action from very early ages, and you need to, but small children should not be overwhelmed by the consequences of their mistakes. I firmly believe in punishment, but small children need an immediate and momentary punishment, like spanking or sitting in the corner for a time. As the child gets older, you can begin to let them take some of the long-term consequences, like taking money out of their allowance if they broke something, going without TV for a while if TV is distracting from HW. Mercy should be present in the form that the child should not take the full, real-world consequences until late high school or graduation.

 

@khaavern:

Yes, although justice in my view allows some degree of making the kid understand, putting up borders and prohibitions where necessary and intervening when he starts flipping out.

Compassion would be tempering that justice with love and mercy, being kind and lenient rather than strict and unforgiving, possibly leading to letting them get away with things that would normally be a no-no, yes.

@Morgoroth: I don't believe in throwing out or even forcing them to work and/or cover part of the bills. I'm more in favour of less and less sponsorship as they start earning more and more money, so that they get the bills paid but they don't get luxurious freebies when they have a job.

I just believe in always pointing out faults and not ignoring failures. I wouldn't be a "clean up, do homework, walk the dog, take your meds, don't stay up too late, quit wasting time on the phone/computer" kind of parent, but I'm worried by the extent to which people ignore their children harming others. Coming short and underachieving a bit from time to time isn't such a problem in my eyes as being mean, thoughtlessly destructive and whimsical with people, while for most parents it seems to be otherwise. And yeah, treating teenagers like toddlers is a bad idea.

 

You can raise your kids as you see fit, but IMO that's complete nonsense. I have small children and use neither tactic on them. I hope my children learn from the example I set as a parent that violence and aggression are not solutions to problem solving. I have NEVER spanked my four year old, and have not had any serious behavioral problems with her, same with my two year old - but she is only two. Aggressive behavior is discouraged around here. Nor do I punish them by isolating them by themselves; they get time out in the spot, if practical, where they are misbehaving. But as I said earlier, every parent has to deal with what is in front of him or her, and as long as the violence does not become abuse, then it may work for some parents.

[ November 23, 2005, 06:29: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Suprisingly, I agree with Chev. Children should be punished for misconduct, but they should know why they are being punished, and why what they did is bad. Younger children shouldn't be punished for things that they are ignorant of, but they should be taught about it. Ignorance is not bliss, for it leads to hate and harm.

I think that children should not be punished as a little kid as much as when they are a teen. The severity should slightly increase as they get older, and become more knowledgeable, because at that point in life, they should know whether or not what they did is good or bad.


I don't have kids (as I am only 15), but I know how they should be treated. My parents are not too harsh on me because I don't do anything stupid, I don't leech off of them (well, I have to to a certain extent, because I don't have a job or a house,etc). My sisters, on the other hand, think that they can live off my parents forever, and once they get into the real world, it will be extremely funny to see how quickly they fail. My older sister doesn't let my dad talk to her about college, grades in school, her horse (the cost, that is), and she never helps him. She should be punished. I do not believe I have done anything that merits a punishment (I am speaking honestly, not because it is me). She is out of control, and I am not. Plain and simple.


Essentially, kids should be punished for their wrongs. However, they should not be punished too badly when they are younger, just informed of what they did. As a teenager, they should be punished if they come home wasted, high, with stolen goods, or being rude. Parents should not be too harsh, nor too lenient.


Ahh, that was a really long post, and because I am still in school, I have to go (chemistry). I couldn't vote in your poll yet (the school computers won't bring it up...), but I will when I get back...

 

Hehe, two out of five have voted "What have you been smoking, chev?"

But not me. Justice before mercy with me. I've seen so many kids, teenagers mostly but younger as well, who are completely out of control, think they're the rulers of the universe, and anyone placing even the slightest kind of restriction on what they can do and when, gets extreme verbal abuse at best and physical assault at worst. This behavior is a direct result of parents not placing their kids enough boundaries.

I think physical punishments such as spanking are unacceptable, but honestly looking at some of the kids today ("kids today", I'm only 22 myself and have no kids...) I sometimes start to wonder if they're too far gone for anything else to work. There's constantly news about how little school teachers can do to keep order, and if one of them *tries*, they get sued for being mean to mommy's little angel. It really ****es me off.

If I had kids of my own, my attitude probably would be a lot more forgiving than I just made it sound. I think it's extremely important to teach children what is acceptable, and unacceptable behavior should not be accepted, but punishments should never be physical. Also like others have pointed out, no punishment will have any positive effect if the child doesn't understand *why* they're being punished; and that's why screaming your head off at a two-year old is not the best of options.

One must be careful not to turn into a nasty despot. The punishments and rules must always suit some purpose, there must be a reason why something is not allowed. The reason doesn't need to be anything more metaphysical than "that is rude", "you can't treat people like that" etc., and one needs to let the children know the rules are also (mostly?) for their own good.

If I had kids and they came home really late and drunk, of course I'd be disappointed. But a lot more important than that is that they'd know they can always come home.

 

Well, depending on where you live, you teenagers might be actually breaking the law if they come home drunk - like in the U.S. for example. If I ever came home drunk as a teenager, my parents would have gone balistic.

My parents were failry strict with their upbringing of me, and I often thought that they demanded too much. That having been said, now that I have reached adulthood, every year older I get my parents get smarter and smarter.

 

So...Would the teenagers be breaking the law by becoming drunk or coming home drunk? Anyway in Finland the teenagers has not the legal responsibility from smoking or drinking (drugs being a big exception in this regard). The worst that can happen is that the police can take you to the station to sober up and confiscate all alcoholic beverages. I can hardly imagine that teenagers would drink less by having laws to punish them over it.

In any case I think it's okay for parents to be pissed over it and coming home drunk is not something to be taken lightly, but I would claim that most teenagers around here get drunk for the first time before their 18:th birthday so it would be more than a little naive to expect your kid to be an exception.

 

Well. it would be illegal to drink, regardless of whether or not you got drunk - so if you're drunk, whether you're home or not, it's illegal. The one really dumb punishment they have in the U.S. is if you are caught drinking underage, you get your dirver's license suspended for 90 days, even if you weren't driving drunk, or even if you weren't in a vehicle when you get caught.

 

Going ballistic is one thing, but it's better that they come home where it's safe than sleep it off someplace where it isn't. Of course the kids should be somehow punished for doing stupid things, but they shouldn't be afraid to come home, and they shouldn't think they can just lie and dodge the punishment when they *have* done something to deserve it, which is dishonest and easy to see through anyway. If they do something bad, there's a ****storm coming, but it doesn't change the fact the parents love them. They just have to face the consequences, wade through the ****storm and hopefully learn something from it. Home should be a place you can always go no matter what has happened.

 

Ah, yes. My favourite: lies. Lies should be punished in a special way, so that fessing up seems a better idea, but not special enough to make it a business-like calculation. In other words, lying must hit back but it shouldn't be avoided by kids only because it doesn't pay but because it sucks.

I think punishing lies is tricky because there's always the risk of shy children running into lies without meaning harm. Sometimes they are so ashamed that they will lie to avoid further shame. I suppose they need a lot of special attention and micromanagement at that point. At any rate, lying is a habit best rooted out ASAP.

I too think teenagers had better know it's better to come home drunk than to sleep it off in a public place or some such. My mum had a great way of showing that. I never felt good after coming home really really pissed, but I was always sure she wouldn't rather I had slept it off elsewhere.

Not a fan of violence, either. In fact, when I'm in charge, I know I'm doing my job well when I don't need to make my decisions commands, let alone enforce them. That's when the leader's job is done right. Of course, when enforcement is needed, it had better be swift and unbending (which doesn't mean never admitting mistakes or doing bad things because to do otherwise would be to show weakness). But I still think that if a teenager attacks father or older brother and telling him to stop and cool down doesn't work, he should be let feel how it feels. Perhaps younger children should be slapped for hitting their parents, although I'm not sure.

Oh, and Hacken Slash's final thought is a good one.

[ November 22, 2005, 21:25: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

As Chandos already said, every parent must find what works for them. Every child is unique also. The most important thing is consistency. I've got kids and sometimes the hardest thing is to enforce a rule or standard when you yourself don't feel like doing...but you have to.

If you deny your child justice, you likewise deny them mercy.

 

Hehehe, I nearly voted for just the results because of how it was worded.

I was hoping that there would be an evenly balanced option, but I chose mercy over justice because the warning comes first. You tell them what they did wrong the first time, and that they shouldn't do it again. A repeated behaviour would then be either punished or warned depending on circumstances. Stiff but fair.

I've lived infinite justice, and I can tell you it doesn't work. My father had various things that he could take away to punish me, but I just got used to sometimes not having them or found a way around it. The first thing he would take away was TV, but I got home from school before he did so I watched anyway and then turned it off before he got home. I quickly got very good at having an exit plan for anything I was doing that I wasn't supposed to. I also got very good at remembering exactly where everything I moved was in the first place, so that I could set things back to rights when I was done thwarting punishment.

He grew increasingly aggravated when his punishments stopped working, and would punish me more to try to make it stick. After one particularly bad day at work, he came home and caught me watching TV. Though he could take away the power cords from the computers (I got around this by switching in power cords from the monitors on his computers) and my NES, the power cord was attached directly to the TV. But at the moment he didn't care; he took out his hunting knife and slashed right through the power cord. He fixed it up later so that there was a piece of the cord that he could take away (I wasn't the only one good with electronics) and it became only slightly more effective; I just learned to live without it.

Constant punishment breeds only contempt for the punisher and the punishment.

 

I have three little girls. I was much more of a "justice" father with the oldest. As time went on and I realized that time is too short, I became much more merciful. I still do not stand for defiance or rudeness, but even then I simply say "You are not permitted to do that, and we will proceed no further until you're behaviour modifies." This may entail revocation of priviledges or treats.

I think my results are pretty good. I certainly believe more in mercy, compassion, and a calm reasoned approach than my previous style, which was closer to the "spare the rod and spoil the child", though not quite that harsh.

 

I have no children, but am firmly of the belief that boundaries need to be set clearly and maintained. That should not be at the expense of allowing them to have a childhood.

I guess that would make me a "justice before mercy" type, but only under some circumstances. Punishment/justice disconnected from reasoning and clear understanding of why it's being done is unhelpful and (in my experience) counterproductive. Of course, that implies that it's necessary to stop them the first time, explain that it's wrong, and set the expectation that they won't do it again. You can't punish a child for doing something no-one ever told them was wrong. "Ignorance is no excuse" or "You should have known better" can wait until you're an adult.

Outside of those limits and expected standards of behaviour (which, to be frank, really only encompass "good manners" and politeness), I am all for being nice to my hypothetical kids. Of course, I wouldn't do spoil them all the time - once in a while, or if they've done well at something, or if I just wanted to be nice for some reason. Just so long as I don't set expectations of reward without merit, I guess.

When it comes to sex, or alcohol, or drugs... well, that's a fair way into the future for me. I would rather know what they were doing and know that they were not doing it recklessly than not know at all. I'd obviously want them to stay away from illicit substances, but if I can't dissuade them from drinking or having sex, I would rather they were under my roof or somewhere I could find them than otherwise.

Then again, I'm not ready for kids yet, and I know it. That's why I have a puppy... if raising a terrier isn't the L-plate equivalent, I'm not sure what is.

[ November 23, 2005, 00:47: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

It is so that if they drink after their license gets suspended, they can't get into a car and drive. And if they do, it is a felony (driving without a license, that is).


And, after Chev's most recent post (about lies, violence), I still agree with him!
What are the odds of that?!


EDIT: I suggest some people read John Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding," and "Some Thoughts Concerning Education." The latter one pertains to this topic in particular. It talks about children's education and punishment... I'm not going to post anything about them right now, I will wait until I get a fresh post, so this one doesn't drag on for pages.

[ November 23, 2005, 04:13: Message edited by: Saber ]

 

I have three girls, 10,3,& 9 months, and I have found that each requires their own approach(no I don't punish my nine month old yet). My ten year old has needed following up ever since she was old enough to walk, and requires much firmer punishing than my 3 y/o, who only requires a firm (not yelling) rebuke to bring her to tears. Corporal punishment has its place with children, but I don't feel that it is usually necessary for most things.

I feel very strongly about punishing in anger. I always send the children away to their room until I cool off before punishing them. They need to know that you still love them and that you are upset with their actions and not them, and that you are punishing them because you love them and want them to be good.

I also feel that it is very important to note good deeds as well as bad. We have "I got caught being good" stickers in my house and I am liberal with them, especially if I have had to punish them that day. Raising children is so scary, you have to look at what your parents did and decide if you turned out all right. If you don't feel you turned out for the best, then you have to decide what they did wrong and hope you're right.