Should parents be allowed 2 hit there kids?

Killing and hurting others intentionally is considered a crime. If a parent hits a child and hurts them isn’t that considered a crime? I believe parents shouldn’t be able to hit their children. Parents shouldn’t be able to hit their children because it could be fatal, and it causes physical & emontional damage, and it doesn’t improve the child.

Fatal means death. If you hit a child in a certain or particular place with a certain amount of force it could kill them. Children aren’t all the way developed so a beating could mean death. Although the purpose wouldn’t be to kill the child just to discipline them, you can never tell. So parents shouldn’t be able to hit their children.

A dramatic experience in your childhood could shape your adult life& your everyday life. Plus it can leave life lasting bruises. Getting hit as a child by your parent can leave you emontionally damaged as well. Some children will feel as if everyone is out to get them. The children may also grow up to despise their parents. Physical damage can be left because a bruise might not heal or an injury may never go away. The emontional damage and physical damage is why parents shouldn’t be able to hit their children.

Hitting a child continuously will not stop them from making mistakes or doing bad things. It will make them share but they will continue to mess up if they know that will be their only punishment. That is why hitting a child is not effective and shouldn’t be used.

To sum up my essay, parents hitting their children shouldn’t be allowed because it could be fatal, cause physical & emotional damage, and it doesn’t work.

NHD LINKS

http://www.tcnj.edu/~kpearson/Mumia/

http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Chapter_History/chapter_history_index.html

http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/fromkin/bibs/2005%20bibliography.pdf

http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780896087187-0

http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Seale__Bobby.html

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/Panthers1_schaefer.htm

Should Huck Be Taught At CHS?

I think that Huck should be taught at CHS because he would get a real education, he would have friends his age as well.
I think that if a child is deprived of a real education and lack of children share share it with it wouldn't be as much fun.
To me having a real education is very important. And if he comes to Constitution High School he would not only get
a good education but good teachers (various). And by him having friends to share his education with, his age he would not only get a good edu. but have many kids to be with.

Huck Finn should be taught in school because it shows how runaway slaves had to struggle just to escape to freedom. Jim had to duck & hides just not to be seen. For example, “ I got hurt a little, en couldn’t swim fas’ so I wuz a considerable ways behind you towards de las: Just to get to the North many became injured & hurt.

Huck Finn should be taught in school because it shows how runaway slaves had to struggle just to escape to freedom. Jim had to duck & hides just not to be seen. For example, “ I got hurt a little, en couldn’t swim fas’ so I wuz a considerable ways behind you towards de las: Just to get to the North many became injured & hurt.