Smacking ban should not be placed free essay sample

To discipline is to teach or instruct; which in this case usually refers to helping children learn self-control. When parents speak of discipline, they usually mean domestic corporal punishment. Domestic corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the parent or guardian in the home smacking or â€Å"striking (someone or something), typically with the palm of the hand and as a punishment this is usually done by using small amount of force for the purpose of disciplining a child in order to discourage attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. Over the past six months a debate has arisen over whether Australia should adopt a law that makes parents smacking their children a crime. As it is a matter of personal choice, parents should be allowed to smack their kid’s, many Australian parents believe it is their right and that it should not be a crime for parents to smack their children as a means of discipline. We will write a custom essay sample on Smacking ban should not be placed or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Surveys conducted have displayed that an overwhelming 80-90% of Australian adults support the occasional necessity of mild physical punishment of misbehaving children by their parents. This points to the widespread belief that parents have a responsibility to give reasonable physical punishment if it is not random or unreasonable and does not cause harm to the child. This is almost always tied to a legitimate belief that it was the only way to control their child’s behaviour and intended to teach the child that the behaviour they displayed was not safe or socially acceptable. In fact, there is research to suggest that smacking a child up to the age of six can improve their standard of life in later years. Responses from the public have shown that any law that seriously intends to prohibit smacking would be unenforceable. Most parental disciplining of children occurs at home and therefore cannot be directly observed by law enforcement officers and others who might otherwise persecute them for their disciplinary methods. A majority of Australians support parents right to use reasonable corporal punishment to discipline their children. It would it be impossible to enforce a law that makes it illegal for parents to smack their children. There is no possible way that households could be monitored in order to ensure that this law is upheld by parents without families having their basic right of privacy, violated. In regards to enforcing such a law, Child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg asserted, How could you reasonably monitor and enforce such a law? What are we going to do? Have the smacking police? he stated in article published in The Age in 2013. The Victorian Opposition Leader, Daniel Andrews, has also stated, Parenting is hard and its not made any easier by unenforceable and intrusive proposals like this. Apart from that, children are already protected under assault laws and studies have shown that moderate physical punishment will develop more resilient and successful children. For the Government to even try to enforce this law and set up home surveillance to prevent children from being smacked they would need to use an absurd amount of tax payers money causing an uproar from parents everywhere as this law would already be infringing their rights but now also be invading their privacy. Their homes would no longer be their homes. There would be no freedom for families to discipline their child with ‘reasonable’ action without fear of punishment though they were previously entitled to by the law. In Australia, children are protected against abuse and assault in the same way all other Australian citizens are protected. In addition to these laws protecting Australian citizens from harm, numerous states have introduced laws that outline the manner in which parents may use physical punishment to discipline their children. The Crimes Amendment Act 2001 (NSW) introduced an amendment specifying that physical punishment by a parent should not harm a child more than briefly and specifies the parts of a childs body where a parent may inflict such punishment. The Act states that the punishment is not reasonable if it is applied to any part of the head or neck of the child, or if it is applied to any other part of the body of the child in such a way as to be likely to cause harm to the child that lasts for more than a short period. This amendment to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) did not entirely abolish the parental capacity for domestic corporal punishment, it also did not distinctly ban the use of physical force towards children, however it did introduce strict guidelines on what is acceptable which is a positive, considering that research results have suggested that physical discipline does not, in fact, cause harm to most children. . In Victoria, there is no legislation relevant to domestic corporal punishment by parents although there is a common law defence for parental use of corporal punishment. Victorian common law allows parents to carry out corporal punishment to their children if the punishment given is neither unreasonable nor excessive or in other words is a means of deterring a child from repeating an undesirable act or in any way harming the child. It is common across all states and territories in Australia, that any parental punishment is required to be ‘reasonable’ or acceptable if it does not cause harm to the child for more than a short period of time. It has been argued that a little physical punishment can result in an individual becoming more resilient. Harvard psychologist Professor Dan Kindlon has claimed, The body cannot learn to adapt to stress unless it experiences it. Indulged children are often less able to cope with stress because their parents have created an atmosphere where their whims are indulged, where they have always assumed that theyre entitled and that life should be a bed of roses. This suggests that those children who were indulged grow up to be more susceptible to a variety of psychological problems as they face reality because they are unaware of their boundaries. Claims that the use of moderate physical discipline during childhood results in the child being more successful later in life have also been made. A study recently conducted found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better academically as teenagers, they are also more likely to engage in further studies than those who have never been physically disciplined. The study, which was conducted by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of Psychology at Calvin College in the United States state of Michigan, established that from the results collected there was not enough evidence to prove that physical discipline harmed most children. Professor Gunnoe stated, The claims that are made for not spanking children fail to hold up. There are those that argue that smacking a child is an unnecessary form of physical abuse, that it causes real harm to children and that it should be outlawed. However, what these people fail to see is that a smack is not hitting or punching, but rather a light tap to remind children to stop their negative behaviour. As this is the case, their argument against smacking is mute. It is unlikely that the corporal punishment of children by their parents will be made illegal in Australia, at least in the immediate future. Popular support for parental corporal punishment of children is high and government intervention in the area is generally seen as intrusive and unlikely to be effective. It is an area that presents major enforcement issues if it were to be deemed illegal; the crime would occur largely within the home and would raise major reporting difficulties. If the punishment is not excessive and is reasonable, parents should be allowed to administer the appropriate form of punishment for their child. After all, who knows what is best for a child if not their own parents?

Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and How It Caused Germany to Lose WWI

Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and How It Caused Germany to Lose WWI Unrestricted submarine warfare is the practice of using submarines to attack and sink all forms of enemy shipping, whether they are military or civilian. It is most closely associated with the First World War when Germany’s decision to use USW brought the US into the war and led to their defeat. The Blockades of World War 1 In the build-up to the First World War, Germany and Britain were involved in a naval race to see how many bigger and better battleships could be created. When this war began, many expected the resulting navies to sail out and fight a great naval battle. In fact, this only ever almost happened at Jutland, and that was inconclusive. The British knew that their navy was the only part of their military who could lose the war in an afternoon and decided not to use it in a massive battle but to blockade all the shipping routes to Germany and try and starve their enemy into submission. To do so they seized the shipping of neutral countries and caused a lot of upset, but Britain was able to soothe ruffled feathers and come to agreements with these neutral countries. Of course, Britain had the advantage, as it was between Germany and the Atlantic shipping routes, so US purchases were effectively cut off.Germany also decided to blockade Britain, but not only did they cause upset they caused th eir own destruction. Basically, the German above sea fleet was restricted to cat and mouse operations, but their submarines were told to go out and blockade the British by stopping any Atlantic trade reaching them. Unfortunately, there was one problem: the Germans had bigger and better submarines than the British, who were backward in understanding their potential, but a submarine can’t easily board and sail off a vessel like the British ships were doing. The Germans thus began sinking the ships coming to Britain: enemy, neutral, civilian alike. Unrestricted submarine warfare, because there were no restrictions on who to sink. Sailors were dying, and theoretically neutral nations like the US were livid.In the face of opposition from the neutrals (like the US who threatened to join the war), and demands from German politicians for the submarines to be brought under control, the Germans changed tactics. Unrestricted Submarine Warfare In early 1917, Germany still hadn’t won the war and there was a stalemate on the battlefields of Western Europe. But Germany knew they were out producing the allies when it came to submarines and were still having success with their more careful policy. High command wondered: if we began unrestricted Submarine warfare again, could our blockade force Britain to surrender before the US was able to declare war and get their troops over the seas? It was an incredibly risky plan, but German hawks believed they could starve Britain out in six months, and the US wouldn’t make it in time. Ludendorff, practical ruler of Germany, made the decision, and in February 1917 unrestricted submarine warfare began.At first, it was devastating, and as supplies in Britain dwindled the head of the British Navy told his government they could not survive. But then two things happened. The British began using the convoy system, a tactic used in Napoleonic times but adopted now to group travelin g ships into tough groups, and the US entered the war. The convoys caused losses to reduce, German submarine losses increased, and the specter of US troops finally broke the German will to continue after their last throw of the dice in early 1918 (a move which occurred as the Germans tried a last land tactic before the US arrived in force). Germany had to surrender; Versailles followed.   What should we make of unrestricted submarine warfare? This hinges on what you believe would have happened on the Western Front had the US not committed soldiers to it. On the one hand, by the successful allied attacks of 1918 US troops hadnt arrived in their mega millions. But on the other, it took the news that the US was coming to keep the Western allies functioning in 1917. If you had to pin it on one thing only, unrestricted submarine warfare lost Germany the war in the west, and so the whole war.