Who's Afraid of Banning Corporal Punishment - A Comparative View on Current and Desirable Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Who's afraid of banning corporal punishment of children?The use of corporal punishment for the education of a child is one of the most loaded and disputed questions among jurists, psychologists, sociologists, educators, and the general public.Modem approaches hold that the use of corporal punishment should be prohibited because of the physical and emotional damage it causes and its inefficiency.According to other approaches, if corporal punishment is administered moderately and with due composure, it is not harmful and could even be useful in setting boundaries for children.How does the law in different countries treat corporal punishment?In most countries of the world, corporal punishment is permitted so long as it is moderate and reasonable.Sixteen countries, mostly in Europe, have in one form or another, prohibited the use of corporal punishment by law.In most countries, the prohibition was enacted into legislation, while a few prohibited corporal punishment through a court ruling.In a small number of countries, the prohibition was enacted into criminal law.Most countries, however, enacted the prohibition as a human right of children not to be exposed to physical punishment as a matter of civil law (family acts and human rights statutes).Has the time not come in common law countries, too, to introduce a ban on corporal punishment, deriving from principles of human rights, the children's dignity, and their rights over their body?Maybe corporal punishment is a fundamental part of a child's right to get a proper education and of the parents' duty to educate and correct the children, as long as the spanking is not harsh.This Article discusses four existing models of legal regulation of corporal punishment drawn from Roman law and the law in England, the United States, Canada, Israel, Cyprus, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, and Germany.The models differ in the level of legal intervention in the parent/child relationship as expressed with the issue of corporal punishment.The Article concludes by proposing a desirable model that reflects the most appropriate way to ban corporal punishment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".