Parenting styles- authoriative Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Parenting styles- authoriative - Essay Example In fact, most parents do not even care to keep track of what their children do. This is detrimental because it makes a child grow without knowing what is morally right or wrong. â€Å"Lack of proper parenting skills and styles have been blamed for such of the bad behaviors seen in children today† (Gray 15). As such, it is advisable for a parent to adopt effective parenting skills to ensure that a child grows up responsibly and morally upright. This discourse will present the parenting skills that parents need to adopt to help bring up children who are responsible, morally upright, and respectful in the society. Authoritative parenting style deals with being responsive to the emotional needs of children, reasoning with children, and setting limits. This parenting method is common amon middle class and it is assicated wit successful children. â€Å"Children brought up by authoritative parents are more likely to become self reliant, well behaved, socially accepted, and autonomou s† (Lookatch 55). In addition, they are less likely to show signs of anxiety and depression and they do not engage antisocial behavior such as use of drug and deliquency. Praising a child is also another important parental skill that parents need to observe. ... Praising a child for good behavior or for an achievement is important for the proper development of a child. Praising a child for an achievement in life motivates them to continue doing well in life (Gray 53). In addition, it helps in boosting a child’s self-esteem, which increases personal satisfaction. Discipline has been one of the most debated parenting issues in recent time. The debate has mainly centered on how a parent should discipline a child whenever they do wrong. However, Lookatch states that â€Å"discipline is very important in molding the behavior of a child† (Kapoor 45-46). As such, in the event that a child does a mistake, a parent should discipline the child immediately. This should also involve correcting the child instantly by showing them why it is wrong to engage in bad behaviors. Correcting and explaining to the child why it is wrong to engage in bad behaviors is important since it makes the child grow knowing that engaging in bad behavior is not acceptable. Showing a child love is one of the most important parenting skills needed for raising a healthy and morally upright child. Gerhardt states in his book â€Å"Why Love Matters† that love is an essential parenting skills that is needed in bring up a healthy child (Gerhardt 41). According to Gerhardt, â€Å"love plays a critical role in the development of the brain of a child during the early years of their lifem† (Kapoor 78). As such, to bring a healthy, respectful and a morally upright child, parents must show the love to a child all the time during their childhood. He attributed this to the fact that love plays a critical role in shaping a child’s social and emotional brain system. He also noted that â€Å"a child who is brought up with love tend to show the same love to others

Landmark Decisions Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Landmark Decisions - Assignment Example The rulings were important in shaping application of the constitution in practical terms (Plessy v. Ferguson) and also in securing the rights of the accused person in protecting his or her innocence (Miranda v. Arizona). Introduction In the Plessy v. Ferguson case, Homer Plessy challenged the Louisiana law requiring that black and white people ride in separate coaches on trains. His argument was that the 14th Amendment of the constitution was meant to guarantee equal protection and due process under the law. However the Supreme Court ruled that segregation under state law was constitutional as long as the facilities provided for the different races were equal. This â€Å"separate but equal† ruling sets the stage for segregation laws that stayed in force for the next 60 years. In the Miranda v. The Arizona Supreme Court held that an accused person’s confession was not to be admitted in court if it was found that he or she was not informed of their right to counsel or hav ing themselves protected against self-incrimination. It forms the basis of the Miranda warnings that are issued up to the present day before any interrogation by an arrested person is initiated (Landmark Rulings of the United States Supreme Court, n.d.). 1. The Plessy v. ... In passing the ruling, Justice Henry Brown noted that the â€Å"Separate but equal† statute merely implied a legal distinction between black and white and that it did not violate the Amendment because it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on race or to enforce social equality. As far as the majority Justices were concerned, as long as the statute did not discriminate against the black population politically and merely sought to enforce social order then it was legal and constitutional. This very narrow interpretation of the constitution was entirely in line with the thinking at the time and was accepted and endorsed by all except one of the judges of the Supreme Court (Amar, 2011). In the Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the appellant had objected to the use of a confession that had been made without the accused being made aware of their Fifth Amendment rights (the right to not involuntarily incriminate oneself) and also on this Sixth Amendment right (the rig ht to legal counsel, provided free of charge if the accused cannot afford it). The Supreme Court ruling was a landmark in the way accused persons are questioned prior to being charged in court. It also made the reading of the accused’s rights a mandatory requirement. Initially there was fear that this decision would lead to as one of the justices said, the setting free of killers, rapists and other criminals who would then go out and commit crime again but it also emphasized the doctrine of presumption of innocence, a key constitutional right (Schauer, 2013). 1A. In the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, the lone dissenting voice was of Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan of Kentucky who held that the constitution is color