 |
||
|
|
|
|
"IT NEVER DID ME ANY HARM...."
Answering common defences of corporal punishment
"Corporal punishment is a necessary part of upbringing. Children learn from a smacking or beating to respect their elders, to distinguish right from wrong, to obey rules and work hard. Without corporal punishment children will be spoilt and undisciplined."
Children need discipline, and particularly need to learn self-discipline. But corporal punishment is a very ineffective form of discipline. Research has consistently shown that it rarely motivates children to act differently, because it does not bring an understanding of what they ought to be doing nor does it offer any kind of reward for being good. The fact that parents, teachers and others often have to repeat corporal punishment for the same misbehaviour by the same child testifies to its ineffectiveness. Smacking, spanking and beating are a poor substitute for more positive forms of discipline which, far from spoiling children, ensure that they learn to think about others and about the consequences of their actions. In the countries where corporal punishment is banned there is no evidence to show that disruption of schools or homes by unruly children has increased: the sky does not fall if children cannot be hit.
"I was hit as a child and it didn't do me any harm. On the contrary I wouldn't be where I am today if it were not for my parents and teachers physically punishing me."
People usually hit children because they themselves were hit as children: children learn from and identify with their parents and teachers. It is pointless to blame the previous generation for hitting children because they were acting in accordance with the general culture of the time; nor should bonds of love and gratitude which children have towards their elders be denied. However times change, and social attitudes with them. There are plenty of examples of individuals who were not hit as children becoming great successes, and even more examples of individuals who were hit failing to fulfil their potential in later life.
Parents often hit out of anger and frustration – children, like adults, can be very wearisome and difficult – and because they have no knowledge of alternative methods. Parents who try alternatives report success.
Parents' right to bring up children as they see fit should only be challenged in extreme cases, like child abuse.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child replaces the concept of parents’ rights with "parental responsibilities" (which of course carry with them certain rights), including the responsibility to protect the rights of children themselves. The assertion of children's rights seems an unwarranted intrusion to people accustomed to thinking of children as parents’ possessions, but children are now recognised as individuals who are entitled to the protection of human rights standards along with everyone else. Other forms of inter-personal violence within families – including wife-beating – are already subject to social control and are unlawful in almost every society.
"There is a big difference between a vicious beating and the little smacks that parents often give their children. These are not dangerous, do not cause real pain and cannot be called abuse. Why should these be outlawed?"
Firstly, the little smack does cause a child pain and is intended to do so. And sometimes "minor" corporal punishment causes unexpected injury. Hitting children is dangerous because children are small and fragile (much corporal punishment is targeted at babies and very young children). Ruptured eardrums, brain damage, and injuries or death from falls are the recorded consequences of "harmless smacks".
People would no longer get away with condemning violence to women, by defending "little slaps".
There is a large body of international research suggesting negative outcome from corporal punishment. The following are some of the conclusions:
- Escalation Mild punishments in infancy are so ineffective that they tend to escalate as the child grows older. The little smack thus becomes a spanking and then a beating. Parents convicted of seriously assaulting their children often explain that the ill-treatment of their child began as physical punishment.
- Encouraging violence Even a little slap carries the message that violence is the appropriate response to conflict or unwanted behaviour. Aggression breeds aggression. Children subjected to physical punishment have been shown to be more likely than others to be aggressive to siblings; to bully other children at school; to take part in aggressively anti-social behaviour in adolescence; to be violent to their spouses and their own children and to commit violent crimes. National commissions on violence in America, Australia, Germany, South Africa and the UK have recommended ending corporal punishment of children as an essential step towards reducing all violence in society.
- Psychological damage Corporal punishment can be emotionally harmful to children. Research especially indicts messages confusing love with pain, anger with submission. "I punish you for your own sake", "I hurt you because I love you", "You must show remorse no matter how angry or humiliated you are". Less acknowledged are the links between corporal punishment and sexual development (reflected in much pornography, and in the common use of prostitutes for spanking and correction), and between corporal punishment and sexual abuse of children, whereby the invasion of children’s physical integrity makes an easy path from one to the other.
"I only smack my children for safety - for their own sake they must learn about danger."
If a child is crawling towards a hot oven, or running into a dangerous road, of course you must use physical means to protect them – grab them, pick them up, show them and tell them about the danger. But if you raise your hand to hit them, you are wasting crucial seconds and – more important – by hurting the child yourself you are confusing the message the child gets about the danger, and distracting their attention from the lesson you want them to learn.
"Many parents in our country are bringing up their children in desperate conditions, and teachers and other staff are under stress from overcrowding and lack of resources. Forbidding corporal punishment would add to that stress and should await improvement of these conditions."
This argument is a tacit admission of an obvious truth: corporal punishment is often an outlet for pent-up feelings of adults rather than an attempt to educate children. In many homes and institutions adults urgently need more resources and support, but however real adults’ problems may be, venting them on children cannot be justifiable. Children’s protection should not wait on improvements in the adult world, any more than protection of women from violence should have had to await improvement to men’s conditions. Refraining from hurting or humiliating children does not consume or distort the deployment of resources.
In any case hitting children is an ineffective stress-reliever. Adults who hit out in temper often feel guilty; those who hit in cold blood find they have angry and resentful children to cope with. Life in homes and institutions where physical punishment has been abandoned for more positive discipline is much less stressful for all.
"This is a white, Euro-centric issue. Corporal punishment is a part of my culture and child-rearing tradition. Attempts to outlaw it are discriminatory."
Historically, the hitting of children seems to be a white tradition, exported to many parts of the world through slavery and colonialism, both of which used corporal punishment as a means of control. It appears that the only cultures where children are rarely or never physically punished are small, hunter-gatherer societies, now rapidly vanishing under the impact of urbanisation – but arguably among the most "natural" of all human cultures.
No culture can be said to "own" corporal punishment. All cultures have a responsibility to disown it, as they have disowned other breaches of human rights which formed a part of their traditions. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child upholds ALL children’s right to protection from all forms of physical or mental violence without discrimination on grounds of race, culture, tradition or religion. There are movements to end corporal punishment of children now in all continents of the world. School and judicial beatings have been outlawed in states in all continents.
"My religion requires the corporal punishment of children."
People are entitled to freedom of religion only insofar as the practice of their religion does not break the law or infringe human rights. But in fact in none of the world’s great religions does the word of God require children to be beaten. Phrases such as "spare the rod and spoil the child" do occur in some holy books, but not as a doctrinal text. Sayings which endorse peaceful solutions and kindly forms of child-rearing can be found in equal measure to punitive sayings in all religious scriptures, and in every faith there will be prominent leaders who denounce all violence to children.
"If corporal punishment of children is outlawed or criminalised this will result in outrageous judicial or disciplinary intervention. Children will be encouraged to act like police and spies in the home."
In countries where corporal punishment is outlawed there have been some disciplinary actions against teachers and childcare workers who hit children. In relation to the family home, these laws are about setting standards and changing attitudes, not prosecuting parents or dividing families. Child protection becomes more straightforward once confusing legal concepts of "reasonable chastisement" are abandoned. Research shows that parents seek help earlier when they recognise that hurting their children is socially and legally unacceptable. Welfare services recognise that children’s needs are as a rule best met within their families, so provide parents with help and support rather than punitive interventions.
"Banning physical punishment will just lead to children being treated in more horrible ways - emotional abuse, or humiliation or locking them up. How do you suggest children should be punished?"
Children must be protected from all forms of humiliating and inhuman punishment, not only corporal punishment, and parents or staff often need guidance on alternatives to such punishments. The starting point is not to replace one form of punishment with another, but to see discipline as a positive not punitive process, part of the communicative relationship between parent and child. Research clearly shows that effective control of children’s behaviour does not depend upon punishment for wrongdoing but on clear and consistent limits that prevent it. Thereafter good discipline - which must ultimately be self-discipline - depends on adults modelling and explaining the behaviour they prefer; having high expectations of children’s willingness - and realistic expectations of their developmental ability- to achieve it, and rewarding their efforts with praise, companionship and respect.
"This country is a democracy but there is no democratic support for ending corporal punishment. I bet if there was a poll on the issue a huge majority would support retaining corporal punishment."
Representative democracies are not run by popular referenda. This means that the elected politicians will, when drawing up new laws and the constitution, make a number of unpopular decisions, based on informed arguments. Like the abolition of capital punishment, proposals to end the physical punishment of children never enjoy popular support before legal or administrative steps are taken to outlaw it. However public attitudes rapidly change once such steps are taken.
"I’d bet that if you asked children how they’d like to be punished they would choose corporal punishment."
Perhaps you could say that was a good reason not to use it! One reason some children may say they like to be physically punished is because it is "quick". In one sense this is true, in that a blow or a beating can quickly be shrugged off or can bring esteem from peers.
This underlines how very ineffective it is as a method of discipline.
In another sense physical punishment is not "quick" because its hidden effects – humiliation, loss of self-esteem, encouragement of aggression and bullying – can be long-lasting. And sadly it is also true that children sometimes seek a beating as a means of gaining the attention of an adult who otherwise ignores them.
This section is adapted from a pamphlet published by EPOCH-WORLDWIDE and Rädda Barnen — "Hitting people is wrong — and children are people too".
If you can improve these arguments, email us at info@endcorporalpunishment.org