CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Sir, —The weakness of John Burbridge’s argument is his tacit assumption that children start as integrated individuals rather than as singleminded egoists with neither knowledge nor judgment of what constitutes the norm of decent adult behaviour. They have the indubitable right to be loved and protected but absolutely none to dominate their elders by being automatically granted that “free expression” so dear to the hearts of theorists. Some chil-
dren are amenable to reason, but others, especially those who habitually disobey orders for their own good, such as care in crossing roads, can only learn wisdom through the heaviness of the parental hand. To call this necessary admonition “assault” is nonsense, and to cite one extreme case of ill-treatment is just an example of special pleading. The law deals drastically with such cases, but corporal punishment as a means of enforcing necessary discipline is neither brutal nor sadistic.— Yours, etc., I.S.T. March 11, 1956.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19560313.2.48.10
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27916, 13 March 1956, Page 7
Word Count
156CORPORAL PUNISHMENT Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27916, 13 March 1956, Page 7
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in