Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Mission Mountain School => Topic started by: Anonymous on July 23, 2005, 06:56:00 PM

Title: Corporal punishment at MMS- have we returned to the dark age
Post by: Anonymous on July 23, 2005, 06:56:00 PM
Appendix A: An Operational Definition of Corporal Punishment:
Corporal punishment refers to any action of a parent, other adult, or caretaker that intentionally inflicts or causes pain or physical discomfort in a child for the purposes of punishment or containment. Corporal punishment includes, but is not limited to, spanking, slapping, smacking, hitting, shaking, biting, shoving or pulling a child; denying, restricting or rationing a child's use of the toilet; forcing physical exertion, requiring a child to remain motionless, or isolation of a child in confining spaces; denying a child access to needed water, food, or sleep. Such treatment is potentially traumatic even if it does not meet the legal requirements for a definition of child abuse under current legislation.

Appendix B. The Text of the 1975 APA Resolution on Corporal Punishment:
Council voted to adopt the following resolution on corporal punishment:

WHEREAS: The resort to corporal punishment tends to reduce the likelihood of employing more effective, humane, and creative ways of interacting with children;

WHEREAS: it is evident that socially acceptable goals of education, training, and socialization can be achieved without the use of physical violence against children, and that children so raised, grow to moral and competent adulthood;

WHEREAS: Corporal punishment intended to influence "undesirable responses" may create in the child the impression that he or she is an "undesirable person"; and an impression that lowers self-esteem and may have chronic consequences;

WHEREAS: Research has shown that to a considerable extent children learn by imitating the behavior of adults, especially those they are dependent upon; and the use of corporal punishment by adults having authority over children is likely to train children to use physical violence to control behavior rather than rational persuasion, education, and intelligent forms of both positive and negative reinforcement;

WHEREAS: Research has shown that the effective use of punishment in eliminating undesirable behavior requires precision in timing, duration, intensity, and specificity, as well as considerable sophistication in controlling a variety of relevant environmental and cognitive factors, such that punishment administered in institutional settings, without attention to all these factors, is likely to instill hostility, rage, and a sense of powerlessness without reducing the undesirable behavior;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the American Psychological Association opposes the use of corporal punishment in schools, juvenile facilities, child care nurseries, and all other institutions, public or private, where children are cared for or educated (Conger, 1975). (
Title: Corporal punishment at MMS- have we returned to the dark age
Post by: katfish on July 25, 2005, 10:25:00 PM
The Loose Screw Awards"
Psychology's Top 10 Misguided Ideas

Correctional Boot Camps

In the late 1970's, government leaders were desperately seeking remedies for the nation's soaring crime rate. One solution, inspired in part by the tough love message coming from mental health professionals, was to establish military-style boot camps where harsh discipline and strict regimes would set people straight.

Although initial reports were encouraging, by the mid-1990s troubling stories began to appear about abuse and sadism at the camps. In 1998 five staff members at a boot camp in Arizona-- including the camp nurse-- were indicted in connection with death of a 16-year old inmate. At the time of his death, his body was covered with cuts and bruises-- 71 in all. The camp was eventually shut down, and 16 of its staff members were added to the state's registry of child abusers.

The biggest problem with boot camps, however, is that they just don't do the job. Recidivism of 60 percent or more is common-- as high as, or higher than, recidivism rates generated through more benign programs. Experts on learning have long known that harsh discipline mainly teaches people to be harsh themselves-- and to hate their abusers-- but that message is getting through only belatedly to the boot camp advocates.

As the head of a National Institutes of Health panel that studied "get tough" programs nationwide summed it up a few months ago: "All the evaluations have shown [the programs] don't work.

Dr. Robert Epstein, 'Psychology Today' Feb 2005