Saturday, November 17, 2007

A Swedish Smackdown

Swedes are now officially allowed to hit their kids. As long as it’s not too hard. After years of ridicule from the international community (ok I made that part up) for basically banning all forms of corporal punishment (I didn’t make that up) against kids, Swedes can now lay a smackdown on their children. A Swedish Smackdown if you will. As The Local reports “[t]he 1979 Parenting Act states that children ‘may not be subjected to corporal chastisement or other demeaning treatment.’" Most people read that to mean that no kid should ever be touched or even yelled at.

A surprising (to me) number of Stockholmers interviewed by the Metro, a beacon of journalistic integrity, agreed that kids should never be spanked. One even saying that even raising your voice should be avoided. On page two of the above link you’ll find Afsaneh Amini, who says: “Det är glasklart – man ska aldrig röra barnet i uppfostringssyfte. Man ska inte skrika heller om man kan undvika det.” Which translates to: “It’s crystal clear - you should never touch the child when it comes to child rearing. You should not yell either if you can avoid it.” No problem. No yelling at all. My parents had to yell. There were three boys in the house being little hellions as loudly as we could.

Well, despite these incredible crazy parents who never yell at their kids, Sweden has made a change. As long as you don’t hit your kids too hard and you have their wellbeing in mind you can get away with it.

A little girl was at a checkup and told a nurse that she had been hit. She said that her dad it her on the butt. The dad admitted to it and was then put on trial for assault. For spanking his daughter. Assault. Luckily, there are people in Sweden who aren’t idealistic to a fault. The court ruled that the spanking was not hard enough or done with ill will and so should not be considered assault. Well done Court, well done.

Swedes have this strange view that a spanking is akin to child abuse. In fact, that’s exactly how the newspaper described it with the title: “Barnmisshandlare blev frikänd,” which translates to: “Child abuser acquitted.” So even though the Swedes won’t show the faces of accused murderers they will continue to refer to someone who was acquitted of a crime as a child abuser. Good. So someone who spanks their kid but isn’t convicted of any crime doesn’t get the same respect as a person who might have pushed someone into the path of an oncoming train. Makes sense to me.

I got spanked every now and again. By my father. A Swede. I probably even got spanked by him while living in Sweden. Or maybe the move to the US was just so he could spank us without fear of repercussions. Hopefully the statute of limitations has run out on this. Wouldn’t want the old man to end up in prison. Anyway, never once did I think that a spanking was meant to do anything than remind me that I was being a little shit. I was never left with any physical harm, nor mental for that matter. I think I turned out pretty normal too. Along with my younger brothers. None of us are hardened criminals, none of us torture small innocent animals, pretty normal really.

Kids these days are just wimps. Back in my day we took a spanking and didn’t tattle to the police. But the fact that this little girl’s lawyer is planning to appeal the verdict really bothers me. The lawyer is pitting little girl against parents even after one decision has already been made. If anything, the whole process of trying to convict the parents will do more harm to the little girl than a quick spanking ever could. Welcome to Sweden.


  1. I remember back in the 70's when a good spanking always did you good, and if i couldnt of spanked my children, then i think i would of been the one on medication because my oldest son had major problems. which he no longer has...but still..the spanking made him listen and it releived me of my hes well behaved.

    i dont know what to say to the little girls lawyer...except shes a moron..or he, whatever her lawyer is. give me a break and spank your kids, dont let them run around acting like idiots like i see most of the kids here do because they know they can get away with it..thank god for spanking!!!

    i might want to spank someone now coz i can!..hehe

  2. nothing wrong with a little corporal punishment now and again.

    if anyone needs a spanking in this situation it seems to be the lawyer who is just making things worse.

  3. Svår fråga. Varken jag eller någon utav mina tre bröder har någonsin fått stryk av våra föräldrar, inte för att vi inte förtjänade det, tro fan att vi gjorde det ibland - men det fanns alltid andra metoder att lösa konflikterna med. Jag måste även tillägga att vi "turned out pretty normal" as well. :)
    Jag tror att det är väldigt individuellt, lever du med en ensamstående alkoholiserad mamma som ger dig örfilar när du inte plockat ur disken är det självklart fel. Får du däremot en klapp i baken när du står och gapar efter godis i mataffären, är det kanske lite mer rättfärdigat!
    Vad jag tror det (lagen) handlar om är att skydda barn från övervåld, inte från daskar i baken för att sätta barna på plats.

  4. I understand this point of view, because sometimes you run out of ways to knock sense into a kid's head.

    But it can also go into extremes. I was pretty often beaten up as a kid, basically after every time I did something wrong. I'm carrying this weight for the rest of my life. I will never forget it and I don't want to. It has affected my nature and my behavior. I'm still quite ok, but it's not because I got beaten up as a child. Thank God it's not 70's anymore!!!

  5. So Im going to respond to both Sandra and Smek This in English because Smek This kind of played off of Sandras comment in English. Both brought up excellent points and did so in very effective ways. And I Agree with both of them. Sandra points out that she was never spanked despite maybe deserving it as a child and she managed ok. But she believes that it is a very individual thing and that a kid being hit by his alcoholic mother is very different than just a quick spank at the grocery store for a little kid who want stop whining. And she's right. Smek This points out that he was on the other side of Sandra and was hit as a child and that the extreme is never good. And he's right.

    The problem with the Swedish law is that the way most people interpret it is that there should be absolutely no physical contact regardles of intent or actual damage. And that's my problem. BEcause sometimes a quick little spank on the butt is ok. But the problem is that the extreme is awful. I believe though that if this judicial ruling holds up that it will loosen the law just enough that a father wont be put on trial for assault fr giving his daughter a little spank but it won't encourage people to go out and beat their kids because they can get away with it. I think it's a great ruling and should do just enough to protect a little smack on the backside and still protect the children from the awful parts of child abuse.

  6. So do you know most people? You say that most people interpret the law that there should be absolutely no physical contact regardless of intent or actual damage.

    So once again: Do you know most people?

    I call bullshit on you analysis. Reading through your site confirms that you tent to generalize an awful lot. And in this case you do it again. Most people I know have common sense, they raise their voice and sometimes grab the child to mark that they did something wrong.


    The law is to protect the children that get hit and can not protect themselves.

    Which brings me to this question:

    Shouldn´t the child have the same right regarding violence against them as adults. If someone hits you they get punished.

  7. don't answer that one Hairy!

  8. I know a lot of people, not most people, that's the beauty of different figures of speech, some people just take them too literally. It'd be hard to know most people in a country of 9 million, so I do generalize quite a bit. Never have I said that I don't, in fact usually I do so with a hint of sarcasm, which tends to show up when reading through all of my posts. I’m not going to say 7,320,221 Swedes think this or that. So I generalize.

    That being said I stand by this generalization. Most people in Sweden do read the law as if you should never hit your child. Numerous different news sources write this way, including The Local, which is where I got the article, as well as the Metro, which is also linked to. In the Metro all of the people interviewed said the same thing. Never hit your child. In all the conversations I've had with people about this they equate the law to never being able to hit your child. You even say, very adamantly I might add, "THEY NEVER HIT THEIR CHILDREN." And so it seems that most people do in fact read the law just as I interpreted it. Never hit your children. I just don't agree with a never. And I believe I’ve explained why in the post and my subsequent comments. Let me explain again though that in no way do I condone beating your child, abusing your child, or anything close to that. I just have no problem with a little spank now and then. That’s not assault.

    And to your final question about the rights of children with regards to violence: plenty of people hit others and never get in trouble for it. Adults and children both. If my brothers and I were punished for all the times we hit each other we'd still be in prison (well not in
    Sweden since murder only gets you 10 years), and not because it was vicious but just because it happened. Often times punishment tries to adjust to the severity of the crime, and a father spanking his daughter leaving no lasting physical harm should not have to be charged with assault.

    Hopefully that clears up my position a little bit. And just so everyone understands from here on out. I generalize a lot. I will continue to do so. I don't pretend to speak for all of Sweden, or the US or Americans in Sweden. I speak for myself and write what I think. Don't read so much into it that you think I know "most people." Come on now.

  9. To both hairy and anonymous:
    The difference between adults hiting children and adulst hiting one another, is that children canät defend themselves - and that is what the whole law is about. Protecting children from something they can not protect themselves from.

  10. Agreed. But prohibiting all physical contact just doesn't seem like the best way to me.

  11. Jag vet inte vad du fått din fakta ifrån men barnaga är väl ändå fortfarande förbjudet i Sverige utan undantag?

    Utdrag från föräldrabalken:

    "Barn har rätt till omvårdnad, trygghet och en god fostran. Barn skall behandlas med aktning för sin person och egenart och får inte utsättas för kroppslig bestraffning eller annan kränkande behandling."

  12. I’m going to answer this in English because most of the discussion has been in English. The comment basically asks me where I got my facts from because corporal punishment for children is still prohibited without exception in Sweden. It then gives an excerpt from the parenting code which states that children are entitled to safety and protection and a good upbringing. It continues and says that children should be treated with regards to their own person and should not be subjected to bodily punishment or any other sort of treatment that could violate their rights.

    My information comes from the court decision in the aforementioned case of a father who spanked his daughter. The article summarizing it in English can be found here at The Local. The father was found not guilty. Based on this court decision it would seem to me that there are clearly exceptions to this law. A father spanked his child and was not found guilty of child abuse. That means that some sort of corporal punishment is allowed. If this law sets any sort of precedent then that could continue which would further my point that this law is READ to mean that there is no corporal punishment without exception but in practice that is not necessarily the case.

    Once again, I believe there is a huge difference between child abuse and just a little spank on the backside for a child. It is increasingly interesting to see the reactions because many Americans who have commented seem to agree while many Swedes who have commented do not. Fair enough. But that's kind of my point. In Sweden any form of physical contact against a child is considered child abuse. And I just don't believe that. And if this court ruling holds up then the way the law that this person quoted may be read a bit differently.

  13. Miserable Leeds FanNovember 30, 2007 at 8:12 AM

    Apologies for being late on this one, but felt compelled to comment. I'm an Englishman and have lived in Sweden for 2 years (Swedish wife, the usual story..). Sweden frustates me and delights me in equal measures, which seems to be pretty much how Mr Hairy Swede feels. Delights me in such socially enlightened ways as 18 months maternity/paternity leave, the efforts to tackle homelessness as you have recently highlighted, plus the overall social safety net. The frustration I feel derives from the hypocracy of a country that sanctimoniously judges a quick smack to the bottom as a crime (grew up in England, was an occupational hazard that I can't say has blighted either my childhood or adulthood) but then frees an utter shit of a father who raped his 8 year old son, on the basis that he was drunk and asleep and therefore didn't know what he was doing. Outrageous does not begin to describe the fucked up judicial system over here. Get your priorities straight, Sweden - we have a baby boy and would never dream of hitting him (but I would never judge my parents' generation - we are all a product of our times), but please get your house in order in terms of your over-riding desire to protect criminals' rights, before telling people how to bring up their own kids. It's standard here for rapists to be sentenced to 2 years in prison - why not just give them a quick smack to the bottom if you are that concerned about these baseless cretins??

  14. No worries at all. Akways nice to get another comment on this one. It seemed to get some reactions out of people!

    I agree compeltely with you. Some of the things in Sweden are amazing. Just wonderful. Other things though disgust me. The judicial system being a huge thorn in my side.

    Too many times I find myself appalled and shaking my head at the way criminals are treated with such respect and given more rights than the victims themselves.

    Recently a murder conviction was overturned because the prosecutor argued that the woman didn't die until the men drowned her when forensic evidence showed that she died from blows to the head before she was stuck under water. Either way the two men killed her but they were freed because of a disagreement as to what form of violence actually killed her. Even the defense attorney made a comment that they couldn't believe the decision.


  15. En bra dokumentär på svensk TV visade att barn och ungdomar som blev slagna hemma i uppfostringssyfte(eller inte...) slogs oftare med andra ungdomar och betedde sig oftare som idioter i skolan. Är inte det den exakta motsatsen till varför vissa föräldrar slår sina barn?

    Jag ska säga att mina föräldrar slog mig ibland när jag var mindre och jag komme inte ihåg de som trevliga minnen. Jag kommer inte heller ihåg att jag lärde mig nåt av de. Jag blev knappast en bättre människa av det.

    Angående att höja rösten: Det är inte förbjudet och de skulle va helt jävla sjukt om det var det.. Mina föräldrar höjer rösten till mig nästan varje gång ja träffar dom. De skulle vara me på "Most wanted criminals" om de va olagligt.

    Jag tycker att de är jävligt dumt å slå sina barn och jag tänker aldrig göra det. det är inget som varken barnen eller föräldrarna tjänar på men däremot tycke rjag att det är helt sjukt att en pappa blev anmäld för att ha smiskat sin unge.

  16. The above comment says that there was a documentary that showed children who were hit at home had worse behavior in school and were more likely to fight, act up, and generally act like idiots. The poster asks if that isn't the exact opposite of what parents are hoping for.

    The poster then says that they remember being hit by their parents, that they weren't good memories and that they didn't learn anything and hardly consider themselves a better person because of it.

    In regards to the quote by someone who believed that even raising your voice shouldn't happen this person disagrees completely. Says that their parents still raise their voice every time they meet and if this was illegal they would be featured on Most Wanted Criminals.

    Following this the poster says that they think it is incredibly stupid to hit a child and they never intend to do it. They believe that it isn't something that helps the child or the parents. That being said this person believes that it is completely nuts that a father has been tried for having spanked his child.

    To this poster I say thank you. This is well thought out and well written. You present the opinion very well, while I don't completely agree with you about never spanking your children I have no problem with that view. People all over agree with never laying a hand on your child. I think a quick smack on the backside is ok. Either way, I don't think a full-fledged hit should ever be used. People are clearly a result of upbringing both in regards to the culture and the sanctity of the home they grew up in.

    But, central to the point of this blogpost, we agree on the absurdity of a father being arrested for this. And that was what I've been trying to get at. Finally. Someone from Sweden gets it. Thank you.

  17. Your welcome, I'm glad I could help :P

    I mean the law is mainly there to just keep parents from hitting and abusing their children and of course stop the serious violence and abuses but if a parent spank their children (even though I think it's stupid) they shouldn't get arrested for it. But if a parent knock his/her kid down with the fist, which I've seen myself, they should of course be arrested.

    I think the way to stop parents from hitting their kids, and make parents aware of the bad and unwanted consequences with hitting your kids, is through maybe campaigns and documentaries like the one I've mentioned in the previous comment, and not through arresting every parent who spanks their children. It's just not gonna work.

  18. By the way there was a pretty good post from a miserable leeds-fan.

    Don't get me wrong, but usually Englishmen or Americans who come with this kind of critique don't know what they're talking about. Usually they've never even been to Sweden but just get offended by supposedly self-righteous Swedes who in their view tries to give them parental advice on how to raise their children and just feel urged to write some offending comment criticizing the whole Swedish system for this and that.
    That's why I like comments like your one.

    You really knew what you were talking about and I really agree with you on the sickness and disgust of the sentences rapists and their likes get a lot of the times(or should I say, don't get?..) but I believe this isn't something unique to Sweden.

    But I think the phenomenon of the criminals' rights sometimes being taken care of before the victims' is pretty unique to Sweden, unfortunately.

  19. anonymous has come back with another excellent addition to the discussion. well said again. It is helpful when people have some idea as to what they are talking about. It really lends credence to their opinions. And that's good for everyone.

  20. I think spanking is a bad way of raising your child. It signals that violence would be a better way of getting your point across rather than telling someone off or discussing the problem.

  21. I dont know that it really does. in my opinion the occasional physical punishment actually adds credence to the other punishments. its game theory on a little scale in parenting.

  22. I am a Swede having lived for many years in the U.S. There are areas were America is leading, and there are areas were America is decades behind Sweden. I have a feeling that typical American views on child spanking are similar to those of, oh, let's say, Sweden in 1960.

    I do NOT think that a 4-year old child instantly being spanked on the butt to get a grip and not run straight out in the street again is a bad thing, but I also do not think it is necessary to ever spank your children. I think you interpret the intent with the law in the wrong way. I don't think that the law intends to convey the message that every kind of physical punishment of children must be damaging to them. Rather, I think the intent is to say that it is difficult to draw the exact line and that physical violence against your children is just not a good path to follow in general, and that it is not necessary, and that the pros of completely getting rid of it outweighs the cons.

    Your arguments for why physical punishment of children should be allowed ring quite hollow (your arguments seem to be that because it isn't always damaging and because the Swedish legal system has it's priorities screwed up - both of which I, by the way, agree with).

    It is funny to hear an American talk about hypocricy in the law, and I want to draw a parallel: It reminds me of American laws that says that it is a crime to have sex with someone under the age of 18. (Now we are are talking hypocricy!) Since statistics show that the average age for having intercourse in the U.S. is somehwere around 16 (just like in Sweden), this means that somewhere around a quarter of the American population have committed statutory rape. Don't forget that unless a young couple happen to have their birthdays on the same date, even in couples of the same age, one will unavoidably turn 18 before the other, and thus one will unavoidably committ statutory rape, unless they practice abstinence from the day one of them turn 18 until the day the other one also turns 18. Are you with me? The math: Although average isn't the same as median, they should be close, thus approximately half the American population has had sex before 16-17 years of age, and assuming they continue having sex, half of them will turn 18 before the other party in each couple, thus one quarter of the American population (simplified by excluding various minor factors).

    Now, the intent with such a law is probably not to make a sizeable proportion of Americans into statutory rapists, and say that a happy couple where one happens to turn 18 before the otheris 17 and the other is 18 is inherently wrong. The intent is probably in some kind of half-twisted way to protect "children" or enforce conservative religious values. I don't know. And yes, the law is enforced if someone complains, or is stacked on top of other crimes in those cases where someone is caught breaking the law in other ways. Then there are sodomy laws that are actually, unbelievably, but perhaps rarely, enforced in some southern states if, for example, an estranged wife wants an advantage in divorce proceedings.

    I have receieved spanking myself by my Swedish parents, in Sweden, but that's decades ago, and the idea of child-spanking as a method in child-rearing has been outdated for decades. To go back in time, a visit to the U.S. works. And, by the way, the person who said that one shouldn't yell to one's children IF ONE CAN AVOID IT can be interpretet as an exaggerated expression of common sense (after all, why should you yell to anyone if you don't think you need to?). In any case, it is merely one man's opinion in a pluralistic society.

  23. fair enough, although I will point out that your comment about sex is incorrect. While that may be a law in some states, having sex with someone under the age of 18 is not in fact illegal throughout the US. In Colorado for example, my home state, you can have sex if your are under 18. Which is why the age being 16 just isn't shocking to me. Its not illegal at 16.

  24. No, my comment on sex wasn't incorrect. I specifically put a plural "s" on the word "law" since I was referring to various state laws (they ares still American, aren't they?), but OK, obviously I wasn't clear enough to avoid a misinterpretation. Nice to get feedback on my feedback! :-)

    Btw, it's an interesting blog you got going here! The number of people who actually knows - or have the potential and opportunity to learn - something deeper about both Sweden and the U.S. is rather limited, so you are valued.

  25. youre right, reading through it again, what youve written makes sense. sorry about that. the downside of writing I suppose.

    but thank you, I have a lot of fun with this. there are so many more things that are different than I expected and, being the selfish person I am, assume other people also struggle with. or at least notice.

  26. I was never spanked by my parents. They even joked when we moved to the US that they were allowed to once we got there, but they never spanked me. I turned out fine. They did certainly scream at us though when we ran their patience out and we were punished in other ways, ways in which I probably would've taken a spanking to get my toys or TV privileges back if given the option. Hitting is bad. However, the psychological research behind it is rather clear: as long as the child is informed why they're being hit and not just slapped on the head for 'being stupid', and it's done in a controlled manner, then no harm usually comes from it--long term or short term. To think a society is crazy for not applying corporal punishment on children though, well that's stupid in my opinion. I'm sure a great deal of people would turn out just fine if you pierced their nipples as children too, but that doesn't mean you should do it.

  27. agreed, but I guess Im coming from the controlled, know what you did, rather than the beat the hell out of little kids.

  28. Jag är född på mitten av 70-talet och fick en och annan lättare örfil när jag förmodligen hade förtjänat det, vilket pågick ända upp i till mitten av tonåren vill jag minnas. Det hände dock väldigt sällan, utan endast när mina föräldrar var urförbannade och verkligen hade verkliga skäl för det. Jag förstår dem, för ibland är ungar omöjliga och måste sättas på plats ordentligt för att fatta. Trots det så är jag totalt emot det övervåld som inte så sällan förekom när min pappa växte upp på 40/50/60-talet. Många ungar fick så in i helsike med stryk på den tiden i Sverige ska du veta, både i sina hem och av sina lärare i skolan. Jag förstår bara inte hur sånt övervåld motiverar att bättra en unge på sikt.
    Angående lagen om aga så är den som Sandra nämnde tidigare, att snarare tolkas som ett skydd mot just detta övervåld som förekom tidigare, än att inte ens få ta tag i/daska till en unge som beter sig illa, vilket den här domen du berättade om också påvisade.
    Att dock bara intervjua en massa medelklass-Stockholmare angående attityder kring aga som tidningen Metro gjorde kan enbart kallas dålig journalistik. Varken intervjun eller lagen om aga återspeglar knappast vilka åsikter övrigt folk i landet har kring detta. Enligt vissa forskare så är attityden kring aga relativt oförändrad i Sverige sedan innan förbudet trädde i kraft 1979, dvs en viss majoritet är fortfarande för aga. Medelklassen brukar ofta vara rätt så liberala när det gäller barnuppfostran så deras svar i Metro förvånar mig inte ett dugg. Jag tror även du skulle få ungefär samma svar från motsvarande medelklass i USA, där det för övrigt är tillåtet med aga, MEN med strikta restriktioner för att förhindra skador. Det är alltså endast lätt aga som är tillåten där, ungefär som i Sverige alltså. En kompis till mig som är Amerikan fick faktiskt aldrig "stryk" som barn, till skillnad från mig, vilket visar att folk kan ha väldigt olika attityder även inom länderna. De flesta EU-länder tillsammans med en hel del andra har numera ett förbud mot aga (dvs grovt våld mot barn) så Sverige är knappast unikt om detta idag.
    Nu bor jag inte i Stockholm eller USA, utan i samma lilla stad som jag en gång växte upp i. En av mina grannar består av en familj med tre flickor mellan 6 och 10 år. Jag hör deras föräldrar höja rösten så gott som varje dag när de är ute och finner inget konstigt i det. Men flickorna är också väldiga artiga mot mig de gånger de går förbi vilket jag tror beror mycket på att deras föräldrar är väldigt tydliga mot dem. Det här sättet att fostra får mig att tänka på hur jag själv blev fostrad, dvs tydlighet och noll tolerans. Ett nej var ett nej och inte förhandlingsbart. Gjorde jag något dumt fick det omedelbart olika konsekvenser, punkt slut. Oftast räckte det med skäll av mina föräldrar för att jag skulle skärpa till mig dock. Mina barndomsminnen berättar också att mina jämnåriga och min generation fostrades på liknande sätt vilket jag inte tyckte var något konstigt.

    Kontentan är att fostran påverkas mycket av i vilket miljö du växer upp i. Bara för att det är förbud mot övervåld mot barn så innebär det inte att folk inte fysiskt disciplinerar sina ungar på något sätt. För min del så växte jag upp i en typisk svensk bruksort på 70/80/90-talet med en mycket stark arbetarmentalitet. Det var rak kommunikation utan krusiduller och en massa snack samt en och annan örfil som gällde, vilket också återspeglades i min uppfostran här.

    Avslutningsvis så tycker du ska gå och hyra filmen 'Hets' från 1944 av Bergman. Den visar hur det kunde kännas att vara student på ett gymnasium i Sverige på 40-talet..

  29. ..Glömde säga en sak. Jag tycker också att du ska sluta generalisera så mycket om oss svenskar och Sverige som du gör i dina bloggartiklar. Du framstår enbart som okunnig och dåligt påläst för många av oss. Ta till exempel artikeln "Barnmisshandlare blev frikänd" i dagstidningen som du refererade till på den här bloggartikeln. Du borde åtminstone ta reda på vad för sorts politisk färg tidningen har samt kolla upp om det stått något eller använts en liknande formulering i andra dagstidningar innan du uttalar dig. Dagstidningar lever på att sälja sina tidningar trots allt och använder sig av diverse journalistiska vinklingar för att locka läsare, som t ex "Barnmisshandlare frikänd" vilket dessutom påverkar. Ingen undkommer straff för bevisad riktig misshandel så du borde ha kunnat räkna ut att det ska läsas om att personen var *anklagad* och inte fälld för barnmisshandel.

    Att utgå från blaskor som 'The Local' som läses enbart av folk på nätet samt förmodligen dessutom gör sina intervjuer/undersökningar bland samma kategori, dvs via nätet eller tidningen Metro som ofta enbart intervjuar/läses lokalt blir väldigt partiskt och duger inte heller som underlag för din generalisering. Vad det är för övriga tidskrifter du refererar till har du inte ens listat (källor, länkar hmm?) och ökar inte trovärdigheten direkt. Att du har pratat med folk i din närhet i Stockholm om detta duger inte heller då det också kan bli väldigt partiskt.

    Sen är det en definitionsfråga för folk vad som ska kallas aga. Domen mot den friade "barnmisshandlaren" som du refererade till visar klart och tydligt det. Många svenskar som skrivit här klassar inte en dask i baken som aga trots allt, vilket jag nog också tror säkert att 99% av befolkningen inte gör heller. Beroende på vilka man frågar så kan innebörden i frågan uppfattas annorlunda baserat på t ex på var man bor, social klass, ung, gammal osv. Folket i undersökningarna som fick frågan kanske uppfattade den som om de tyckte det var ok att slå barnet väldigt hårt, med minnen från deras egna erfarenheter från sin barndom som referens, snarare än i att slå lite lätt. Om folk hade fått en mer exakt fråga, t ex "Tycker du det är ok att ge din unge en lätt dask i baken som bestraffning?" så kanske utgången blivit hade blivit en helt annan. Då kanske det hade visat sig att folket i undersökningen snarare tycker att det är helt ok med *lätt* aga i praktiken, trots att man är emot hårdare fysisk bestraffning. Som sagt, min egen erfarenhet och observationer av min nuvarande omgivning motsäger resultatet som du refererade till och du kan alltså inte generalisera här.
    Att i utifrån så få och dåliga källor generalisera kring vad för sorts attityd svenskar kring detta är enbart felaktigt och genant, genant i synnerhet för en person som dig som till och med gått på college.
    Så lägg ner dina "generaliseringar", för du kan inte generalisera överhuvudtaget på det här viset. Det hela blir bara meninglöst dravel.

    ..Sen har du fel i att mord endast ger 10 år i Sverige. Jag kan upplysa dig att det finns folk som sitter på obestämd tid för mord här och vet många som suttit i över 25 år vid det här laget. Sådana personer blir ytterst sällan frisläppa över huvudtaget och är det tuffaste straffet du kan få då hela din framtid blir oviss. Men saker och ting är inte alla gånger svart eller vitt heller. Man måste se till omständigheterna i alla lägen trots allt. Sverige tillämpar faktiskt en av de hårdaste straffskalorna i Europa.

  30. The beauty of the internet is you don't have to read what is written. But thanks for taking the time to write such an extensive comment.

    That being said, I don't totally agree with what I've written here anymore. Seven years later, I probably would have reworded this a bit.