[just_lily]

I am still trying to think this one through, so please don't flame or attack me. I just hope to open a discussion about this. I could argue either side at the moment, so I am still not sure what my position is.

I think it is quite obvious that there are some children that respond very well to gentle discipline. That isn't up for debate, at least in my mind.

But... do you think there are some kids that "need" punishments in order to change their behaviours?

Of course I am not meaning spanking, or any other physical discipline. No child needs to be beaten. But I am talking time outs, grounding (for older children), loss of privledges, or maybe even having to get up early to help dad clean out the gutters.

Do you think that, for some kids, talking and reasoning and logical consequences are just not enough to improve their behaviour? Do some kids need more punitive actions?

Discuss.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think that older kids can benefit from punishments sometimes. It can be best if the punishment is somehow related to the offense, but older kids can also understand when they aren't linked. And natural consequences can, I think, include punishment. A kid (like my dh) that didn't do homework for 3 months so he could fish might be grounded - lots of time to get that extra work done.

There are some caveats though. Parents need to make sure the child understands what the problem was, and help them with the skills they need to control the behavior. And direct punishment is probably best reserved for when the child knowingly commits an act that is forbidden.

Say, for example, a child that had been smoking, breaking a household rule. If the parent is sure the child understands the reason for the rule, there still remains the question of why he did it. Curiosity, to fit in and be cool, or whatever. So the parent needs to address that. But depending on the circumstances, there may still be some responsibility left on the part of the child, who chose to break the rule. So maybe a punishment could work here to let the child "make up" for it. Say, helping with the yard work. So the punishment in this case might have more to do with breaking family rules than smoking.

I guess this is a matter of saying it is not just the action itself that has a consequence, but willingly breaking a reasonable rule which the "authorities" have put in place also has consequences. So the child would have to be able to understand the distinction.

 

[GuildJenn]

I tend to think many kids, especially older ones, can benefit from making amends. This can mean repairing something they've wrecked, or giving their time to chores because they've done something that's impacted on someone else's time.

And sometimes there are consequences that are negative like, if my son has a meltdown at the store, I might not bring him the next time. Not meanly but just because that's the actual consequence.

But punishment, in the sense of "something negative that a parent imposes that doesn't have a direct relationship to the situation" - no, I pretty much think that's not all that effective over the long run. Sure there might be families that are so out of control you have to do something immediate, but I myself think that except for those cases it's really not helpful in the long run.

 

[Susan600]

I think that as long as you don't give in to your children and give constant empty threats then I think you will succeed in your discipline. When I say they can't have something or can't do something then I try to stick to it and not change my mind, very hard to do at times, but this teaches them that no means no and you are serious.

 

[LittleBlessings]

I think that some kids need punishments every once in a while

 

[joy_seeker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuildJenn I tend to think many kids, especially older ones, can benefit from making amends. This can mean repairing something they've wrecked, or giving their time to chores because they've done something that's impacted on someone else's time. And sometimes there are consequences that are negative like, if my son has a meltdown at the store, I might not bring him the next time. Not meanly but just because that's the actual consequence. But punishment, in the sense of "something negative that a parent imposes that doesn't have a direct relationship to the situation" - no, I pretty much think that's not all that effective over the long run. Sure there might be families that are so out of control you have to do something immediate, but I myself think that except for those cases it's really not helpful in the long run.

:

Punishment is only intended to invoke a negative experience, discipline is used to teach something. That discipline may include something negative but it isn't for the sake of "justice" or "revenge" it is for the sake of learning. I view those differently.

I think perhaps the OP intended the question to be whether or not parents sometimes need to impose consequences that won't naturally happen on their own. I would say yes, sometimes that needs to happen in order to keep kids safe either immediately or in the future but I still feel those consequences should be given gently and with the child's understanding of the situation.

 

[octobermom]

no punishment works on the idea that one should experience a negitive feeling and to avoid a repeat of such a negitive feeling they will refrain from doing whatever. It can be effective in giving some imediate results but I still don't feel its a good or effective method. However this doesn't mean that a series of logical conquences wont have some unpleasent feelings or that as a child grows the expcations are as a result the "conquences" might not become "more". For example a child who say refused to do his school work could be "punished" with grounding and he would then suffer havign to missout time with friends and maybe remember this in the future causing him no desire to repeat the act. Its punitive and fails to really address the issue. OTOH a child who has refused to do his school work a logical conquence could be having a period of time where all distractions such as TV time with friends ect are put on hold the time would them be used to not only catch up but to establish rules on school work and help with time managment it would be time to help reach a successful goal. Both might have an undesirable feeling but the intentions and overall attitude in how they are carried out differs.

Deanna

 

[Evan&Anna's_Mom]

Hm.. I think it comes down to definitions. I know that some consider any sort of consequence "punishment", and I'm not on board with that. I think actions result in consequences. When possible and practical, children should experience the natural consequences of their actions -- both positive or negative. For children (not babies, not young toddlers), I think there are occassions when natural consequences aren't practical/safe/possible and then I think a logical consequence can make sense. To be logical and effective, consequence must relate directly to problem behavior and must "teach", not hurt/humiliate/revenge/alleveate parent stress. And I think it only makes sense to take this approach for deliberate misbehavior that a child knows and understands is inappropriate AND a child who is old enough to have impulse control etc. Of course there should never be any negative physical impact from a logical consequence -- that would make it a pure punishment, IMHO.

Beyond gentle logical consequences, I see no reason why any child would "need" punishment for punishment sake.

 

[LynnS6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuildJenn I tend to think many kids, especially older ones, can benefit from making amends. This can mean repairing something they've wrecked, or giving their time to chores because they've done something that's impacted on someone else's time. And sometimes there are consequences that are negative like, if my son has a meltdown at the store, I might not bring him the next time. Not meanly but just because that's the actual consequence. But punishment, in the sense of "something negative that a parent imposes that doesn't have a direct relationship to the situation" - no, I pretty much think that's not all that effective over the long run. Sure there might be families that are so out of control you have to do something immediate, but I myself think that except for those cases it's really not helpful in the long run.

:

I agree that children need consequences, but consequences are not the same as punishment. So, if my child gets really mad and kicks a hole in the wall, my child will help repair the wall. If my child gets mad, throws something and it breaks something of mine, my child will use their allowance and/or do some extra chores to make it up.

In the smoking example, I'm not entirely sure what I'd do, but for me, there's a distinct loss of trust, so that my child would have to be a lot more closely supervised. And if I had to give up my time to do the supervision (or pay someone to do it), then my child would probably have to do some extra work to make up for my time.

So, it's more than breaking rules, it's making amends and helping the child realize the consequences of their actions, even when those consequences aren't directly visible from the action.