For the last 8 years I have worked as a social worker and have seen now both the law enforcement side and the social side. There is no doubt abuse takes place but refusing to control a child with the means of physically striking a kid is part of the problem in many households. Those who refuse to do it seem to have more arrogant or disobedient kids. Those that use it as an occasional means do well. Those that over use it end up with bigger problems than what they started with.There are lots of ways parents give up power to their kids.In law enforcement I got sick and tired of parents giving away their authority to discipline a child. They would call me and say deal with my child and I would tell the parent depending on the situation to spank the kid because I couldn't and didn't want to live with them to raise their children. I had more than one mom say she didn't want to get in trouble because the kid always threatened to "turn her in if she touched her". Well I told her and the teenager that I would be the one responding to the call and I had no problem with mom whipping the tar out of the child for disobedience. In the end we stopped having trouble with that child. Mom had the power again.
Failure to physically strike them usually isn't the problem. And striking them isn't often the neat, clean piece of discipline you're trying to portray here.
Key word I guess is discipline. Which means control. "Whipping the tar out of a kid" typically means losing control, not gaining it.
You'd need to come back in a few years to determine if your little anecdote here was indeed a success.
My comment about whipping the tar out of the kid was also prefaced to that family and many others that there is a line between abuse and discipline. Which I mentioned above. I wanted to reassure the parents they they possessed control of the child and not a bureaucratic or legal society of know it alls. The kid needed to understand the chain of command when it comes to discipline.