In Selina Doran & Laura Botell (eds.), Reframing Punishment: Making Visible Bodies, Silence and De-humanisation (2014)

Authors
Jami L. Anderson
University of Michigan - Flint
Abstract
If one can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners, one can surely judge a society by how it treats cognitively- and learning-impaired children. In the United States children with physical and cognitive impairments are subjected to higher rates of corporal punishment than are non-disabled children. Children with disabilities make up just over 13% of the student population in the U.S. yet make up over 18% of those children who receive corporal punishment. Autistic children are among the most likely to receive corporal punishment. Although they may deny or redescribe particular instances of corporal punishment or their use of restraints, educators defend such actions as legitimate punishment. In this paper, I assess the logic underlying the use of restraints and corporal punishment on autistic children by educators. The rationalizations for the corporal punishment or restraint of autistics stems from the educator’s desire to control the autistic children so as to end typical autistic behaviors such as rocking, repetitive verbalizations, or “flapping” but also the autistic child’s non-affective responses such as not appearing to feel remorse or shame or the absence of a verbal acknowledgement of remorse or shame. The educators assume that the autistic’s failure to exhibit the desired responses is evidence of the autistic’s moral incorrigibility and is, therefore, evidence of the appropriateness of corporal punishment. But this assumption of the incorrigibility of the autistic child is questionable. Indeed accepting this incorrigibility assumption reveals two important problems. First, instructors using physical punishment on autistic children do not understand autism. Second, they are not working with a tenable conception of punishment. Any action undertaken to induce socially acceptable behaviors (whether it be the end of autistic acts or responses such as remorse) is to fail to understand what the legitimate punishment of children is about.
Keywords autism  corporal punishment  disability  Americans with Disabilities Act  children's rights
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Corporal Punishment of Children.Patrick Lenta - 2012 - Social Theory and Practice 38 (4):689-716.
Corporal Punishment.G. Scarre - 2003 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (3):295-316.
Autonomic Responses of Autistic Children to People and Objects.William Hirstein, Portia Iversen & V. S. Ramachandran - 2001 - Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:1883-1888.
Children's Perceptions of Corporal Punishment.E. McGann - 1978 - Educational Studies 4 (2):167-172.
The Passions of Punishment.Nathan Hanna - 2009 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90 (2):232-250.
Punishment: Consequentialism.David Wood - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469.
Inequality Aversion and Antisocial Punishment.Christian Thöni - 2014 - Theory and Decision 76 (4):529-545.
Punishment: The Future.David Wood - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):483-491.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-04-28

Total views
445 ( #18,785 of 2,454,729 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
39 ( #20,562 of 2,454,729 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes