TiAmbria Malone

Hitting Bottom: Why America Should Outlaw Spanking

In the article Hitting Bottom: Why America Should Outlaw Spanking, senior editor of
the online magazine Slate.com Emily Bazelon, makes a strong case on the pros and cons about
spanking being effective or ineffective in America. America, can you imagine a child being
spanked by their parent brutally out of anger and not sorrow? As discussed in Bazelons article,
the law allows for spanking when reasonable and does not carry a risk of serious injury, but if
injury is caused it is considered illegal. Bazelon uses a proposal by Sally Lieber that interprets
the idea of not sending parents to jail for a firm smack, but making it easier for prosecutors to
bring chargers upon instances of corporal punishments they consider as child abuse. Though
Emily also uses a 2000 article in the Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Dr. Robert
Lazelere, which found that spanking actually posed no harm to kids under the age of seven, and
reduced misbehavior when asserting milder punishments. Using classical logic, Bazelons used
several different approaches that relied on the human values to persuade America lean more
towards her argument. With the use of statistics, credible facts, and triggering emotional behavior
she creates a hard core rule about outlawing or banning spanking being effective.
The main three sources that Emily Bazelon used throughout her argument were supported
by logical, ethical, and emotional appeals. Logical appeal refers to persuasion based on evidence
and reasoning. Ethical appeal is another method of persuasion, but is based more on the authors
credibility. Finally there is an emotional appeal also known as pathos used to trigger the reader or
audiences emotion.
Majority of the important information Emily uses to support her claim are statistics,
factual evidence, and reliable sources from other people. The use of research was critical I

observed through Bazelons aspects on spanking were effective by explain there was no right or
wrong, acceptable nor not acceptable ways of spanking being outlawed or banned. In the eye of
the law spanking is an acceptable form of discipline if not overdone. Therefore if a smack leaves
a bruise or causes severe injury it is illegal. U.N. report on violence against children reviewed
that the law does not concern itself trivial matters and will keep assaults on children out of court.
Emily provides statistics from Sally Lieber that I couldnt seem to find reliable about making
spanking illegal contributing to making it less prevalent and also making kids safer due to lack of
reliable evidence. Moreover, details given about the passing law against corporal punishment by
a grandmother of bunch in Sweden seems to be unreliable as well. In contrast Emily uses Diana
Baumrinds hardcore evidence to support her argument which makes her claim effective.
Baumrind interprets how the study of physical discipline never had a positive outcome such as,
children who are hit more are more likely unable to adjust to a normal social environment. By
using sources from Dr. Robert Larzelere who approves of spanking found that spanking posed no
harm to kids under the age of seven, and reduced misbehavior. Although Emily uses statistics
from an unreliable source about the contributions of spanking in Sweden, by evaluating her
ethical appeal, she proves that by using these reliable facts from Dr. Larzel and Diana Baumrind
she makes the information and her claim more reliable.
Moreover, Bazelon uses a variety of emotional appeal to create a source of sympathy to
outlaw spanking. These facts refer to pathos appeal, which trigger emotional behavior. She uses
fact such as Who should we worry about more: the well- intentioned parent who smacks a
childs bottom and gets hauled off to court, or the kid who keeps getting pounded because the
cops cant find a bruise? Based on my emotional opinion, I gained sympathy for the childs
sake, and actually started to consider that kids may actually be encountering physical abuse as

discipline. Towards the end of the argument she then explains the consideration on rather or not a
parent is being impulsive and reactive, or forethought and some restrain. Usually when a parent
spanks a child while being impulsive and reactive it is out of anger and frustration and majority
of the time is considered as child abuse. Whereas if a parent spanks a child in forethought and
some restrain the parent actually is aware of what they are doing and executes a mild disciplined
punishment. Overall Emilys use of emotional appeal helps the audience as well as me as the
reader interpret different emotions about being for and against spanking.
Emily Bazelon uses informal language when explaining the statistics about history and
the law against corporal punishment in Sweden, but when she uses facts given by Dr. Robert and
psychologist Diana Baumrind she uses a very formal language which makes me believe those
sources and accurate. The use of her informal language in the beginning with Sally Lieber did
not make believe the information she gave was true, whereas when she was formal towards the
end of her paper which emphasized her sources to be accurate
In conclusion, Emily Bazelons argument slightly became ineffective due to lack of
specific evidence on Sweden children, but with the support from her other sources and fact her
argument became effective. Toward Bazelons conclusion shows weakness in making a firm
argument by being unsure on a side, which left the audience including me confused. For instance
her approach on spanking being a useful tool and not harmful to a childs development, but
interprets facts by Diana Baumrind who states ones who are occasionally spanked tend to have a
slightly higher misbehavior score than children who do not receive a spanking at all. So by using
the evidence given, how she appeals to emotions, and relying on her credible source I was able to
compose my analysis and target her points as effective.

Bazelon, Emily. Why America Should Outlaw Spanking. Hitting Bottom. 2015. 698-703. Print.