Advocates of school corporal punishment argue that it provides an immediate response to indiscipline and that the student is quickly back in the classroom learning, rather than being suspended from school. Opponents believe that other disciplinary methods are equally or more effective. Some regard it as tantamount to violence or abuse.
In the United States and the United Kingdom, and generally in the English-speaking world, the use by schools of corporal punishment has historically been covered by the common law doctrine of in loco parentis, whereby a school has the same rights over a minor as its parent.
In most places nowadays where it is allowed, corporal punishment inpublic schools is governed by official regulations laid down by governments or local education authorities, defining such things as the implement to be used, the number of strokes that may be administered, which members of staff may carry it out, and whether parents must be informed or consulted. Depending on how narrowly the regulations are drawn and how rigorously enforced, this has the effect of making the punishment a structured ceremony that is legally defensible in a given jurisdiction and of inhibiting staff from lashing out on the spur of the moment.
The first country in the world to prohibit corporal punishment was Poland in 1783 .
Individual US states have the power to ban corporal punishment in their schools. Currently, it is banned in public schools in 31 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. In two of these states, New Jersey andIowa, it is illegal in private schools as well. One argument made against corporal punishments is that some research has shown it to be not as effective as positive means for managing student behaviour. These studies have linked corporal punishment to adverse physical, psychological and educational outcomes including, "increased aggressive and destructive behaviour, increased disruptive classroom behaviour, vandalism, poor school achievement, poor attention span, increased drop-out rate, school avoidance and school phobia, low self-esteem, anxiety, somatic complaints, depression, suicide and retaliation against teacher.
Is Democracy hampering our growth?
The democratic governance of India was definitely formed with a view of overall socio-economic-political growth of its people. But like all other concepts, it brought with it several loopholes too which were selfishly utilized for vested interests by certain groups of people from time to time.
The various scams often coming up by the nexus of political and bureaucratic people points at a major dark side of democratic powers being put to ill use. The recent 2G scam and the Adarsh Society scandal have been glaring examples of the Indian democracy being used for vested interests. Democracy provides the capitalists with ways for biasing the government and the regulations to suite their needs. The various policies and subsidies are often found to be favouring certain lobbies of people rather than being in public interest. The policy of the Telecom Ministry to sell 2G spectrum licenses at archaic rates were clearly in favour of certain influential organizations. All these have a major negative effect on the GDP of the country, in spite of an apparent rosy picture being given to the people. The Solar Energy production subsidy, although projected to be in social welfare interest, was found to be having glaring deficiencies. Democracy also restricts from the concept of a free market economy in the attempt to control economy, thereby restricting better competition and the scope of quality improvement.
Nevertheless, it is the democratic Government of India which is being seen as having better stability than autocratic regimes. This increases the faith and confidence of foreign investors thereby maintaining a healthy FDI. Democracy also gives a sense of representation of the common people which paves...