Do you seriously think there's a correlation between being disciplined and violence as an adult?

Obviously if the kid is beaten then yeah he'll grow up to be violent, but I interpreted the OP as meaning just a good spanking, not child abuse. 

Yeah, sorry- lots of people got confused with me here 

In the UK we tend to use the term "smack" instead of "spank" - I mean the same thing xD

Think about it.

You get frustrated by a child's behavior, you get mad, you hit, no matter how lightly, the child.

The act of force resulting from anger, no matter how little, is what the child learns. He learns that anger disipates through the arm (or leg, or forehead) INTO another person or object.

Beatings has nothing to do with it. Beating a child could turn them into a serial killer, or mass murderer, or a wife-beater at least. Hitting and spanking is just a smaller form of that...the result won't be serial killer, but still violent nonetheless.

I say if your kid doesn't respond to the power of reason then maybe they'll respond with the power of the back of your palm!

Only when they go too far, when they cross the line, spit on it, trash it and burn it.
Otherwise, a month without candy will be enough.

I once read a book, by John Bradshaw which touched on the subject. Here's his analysis on the subject which I mostly agree with...

"Physical Spanking or Abuse

Spare the rod and you spoil the child has been quoted forever as a Biblical justification or injunction for corporal punishment. Physical violence against children (and women) is part of an ancient and pervasive tradition.

Physical violence is second only to sexual violence in the toxic shame it creates. Furthermore, physical violence is highly addictive. Offenders are literally addicted to the violence and fueled by the toxic shame they feel in performing physical violence. Violent offenders are shame-based.

The profile of physically abusing parents includes the following: isolated; poor self-image; lack of sensitivity to others' feelings; usually physically abused themselves; deprived of basic mothering; unmet needs for love and comfort; in denial of problems and the impact of the problems; feel there is no one to turn to for advice; totally unrealistic expectations of children; expect the children to meet their needs for comfort and nurturing; when children fail to meet their needs, they interpret this as rejection and respond with anger and frustration; deal with the children as if they were much older than they are.

There is no good data on the extent of physical abuse. The usual data covers those cases which are reported. It excludes those not treated by a physician, those cases treated by a physician but not identified as abuse and those cases identified as abuse but not reported. It's estimated that there are 200 unreported cases for every case reported.

The ownership of children by parents, and the belief that children are willful and need their wills broken accounts for the rationale of spanking children.

The victim of the physical violence is also bonded to the violence out of shame. In the beginning the victims bond out of sheer terror. But as the abuse continues, their self-worth is diminished. As the self-worth is diminished, the victims lose the ability to choose. They become like starving children looking for morsels and crumbs of love.

Because violence is irrational and impulsive, it is often random and unpredictable. The random quality of the violence sets up what Seligman calls "learned helplessness". Learned helplessness is a kind of mental confusion. The people can no longer think or plan. They become passively accepting of their abuse. I can't imagine a more soul-murdering destruction of human life.

Physical violence is common in family life because the tenets of the poisonous pedagogy promote and support corporal punishment. It's still endorsed as a way to teach children about life. Our common nursery rhyme about the old woman who lived in a shoe attests to the common acceptance of physical punishment.

Physical violence is the norm in many dysfunctional families. This includes actual physical spankings; having to go get your own weapons of torture (belts, switches, etc.); being punched, slapped, slapped in the face, pulled on, yanked on, choked, shook kicked, pinched, tortured with tickling; being threatened with violence of abandonment; being threatened with being put in jail or having the police come; witnessing violence done to a parent or sibling.

This last is a major issue in homes where wives are battered. A child witnessing his mother being battered is equivalent to the child being battered. A witness to violence is a victim of violence."

Can't say that I'm supportive of physical punishment of children, I do think however that in some cases it can work and be justified, if it isn't too severe off course.

Newton was wrong. In the sense that energy is conserved it is true, but the reaction is diffused and rippling out in fractalised ways and thus can differ from situation to situation based on billions of factors.

Personally, I think you don't need to use any physical force that involves hitting (a good bundle is quite enough). Seriously though it's all about voice and control of self. They get it when you are serious.

spanked? My dad used to BEAT THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME...and i turned out just fine :{

Spanking the bishop is some other term, however.