Summary of law reform necessary to achieve full prohibition

Prohibition is still to be achieved in the home, schools, penal system and alternative care settings.

Article 9 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act and article 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act confirm the right of guardians and teachers “to administer reasonable and proper punishment”. These provisions should be repealed and explicit prohibition enacted of all corporal punishment in all settings, including the family home and all settings where adults have authority over children.

All authorisations for the use of corporal punishment in schools and the penal system, including provisions in the Whipping and Flogging Act, the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act and the Prison Act, should be repealed and replaced with explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in all schools, as a sentence for crime and as a disciplinary measure in all institutions accommodating children in conflict with the law. Explicit prohibition should also be enacted in legislation applicable to all alternative care settings, including public and private day care, residential institutions, foster care, etc.

Current legality of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home. Article 9 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act (1894) confirms “the right of the guardian or teacher of a child to administer reasonable and proper punishment to the child”. A similar provision is made in article 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act (1894). Provisions against violence and abuse in the Infancy Act, the Juvenile Offenders Act (1931), the Domestic Violence Act (1996), the Constitution (1980) and the Protection of Children Act (2009) are not interpreted as prohibiting corporal punishment in childrearing.

Schools

Corporal punishment is lawful in schools under article 9 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act and article 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act. The Education Act (1877) makes no reference to corporal punishment. Ministerial Guidelines (2002) state that corporal punishment must be administered only by the head teacher, deputy head teacher or designated senior teacher and only for certain offences (including fighting and use of indecent language); boys should be punished on their hands or buttocks, girls on their hands; the punishments should be inflicted with a cane or strap no longer than 24 inches and in the presence of other learners, and all punishments should be recorded in the Misdemeanours Book. In 2010, the possibility of including prohibition in the new draft Education Act was under discussion, but as at December 2011 no progress had been made.

Penal system

Corporal punishment is lawful as a sentence for crime for males. The provision in article 19 of the Juvenile Offenders Act (1931) for judicial whipping of boys under 17 was repealed by the Juvenile Offenders (Amendment) Act (2010), but boys aged 17 are tried as adults and may be flogged under the Criminal Law (Offences) Act (articles 11, 57, 59 and 223) and the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act (articles 12, 72, 73, 138, 145, 147 and 166). The Whipping and Flogging Act (1922) allows for flogging up to 24 strokes, to be carried out in a prison where a medical official must be present (articles 3 and 4). Article 141 of the Constitution (1980) states that no person should be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment but also states: “Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this article to the extent that the law in question authorises the infliction of any punishment or the administration of any treatment that was lawful in Guyana immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.”

Corporal punishment is lawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions. The Juvenile Offenders Act prohibits imprisonment for persons under 17 (article 13), who may be detained instead in a training school (article 19). The provision in article 20 of the Training Schools Act (1907) for whipping as a disciplinary measure was repealed by the Training Schools (Amendment) Act (2010, article 2). However, persons aged 17 may be sent to prison where flogging is lawful as a disciplinary measure under article 37 of the Prison Act (1957).

Alternative care

The Child Care and Development Services Act (2011) reportedly states that a caregiver or sponsor must ensure that no child is subject to corporal punishment (12 August 2010, CEDAW/C/GUY/7-8, Seven/eighth report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, footnote 54). We have yet to see the full text of the law to ascertain the forms of care to which the prohibition applies. It is likely that corporal punishment is lawful in some forms of care under article 9 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act and article 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act.

Prevalence research

A UNICEF report published in 2010 states that 76% of children aged 2-14 experienced violent discipline (physical punishment and/or psychological aggression) in 2005-2006. Nearly two thirds experienced physical punishment, while a smaller percentage (27%) of mothers and caregivers thought that physical punishment was necessary in childrearing, and non-violent discipline was also widely used: experienced by 87% of children. One child in six experienced severe physical punishment (being hit or slapped on the face, head or ears or being hit over and over with an implement) and 67% experienced psychological aggression (being shouted at, yelled at, screamed at or insulted). Boys were slightly more likely than girls to experience violent discipline: 80% compared to 75%. Children aged 5-9 were slightly more likely to experience violent discipline than those of other ages: 79% of children aged 5-9 compared to 78% of children aged 2-4 and 75% of children aged 10-14. Children living in larger households were more likely to experience violent discipline: 82% of children in households of 6 or more people compared to 74% of children in households of 2-3 people. The statistics also suggest that children with more siblings are more likely to experience violent discipline in most countries involved in the study (p. 72). Children engaged in child labour experienced violent discipline more than those who were not engaged in child labour: 88% compared to 80%. No significant differences in children’s experience of violent discipline were found according to the level of education of adults in the household. (UNICEF, 2010, Child Disciplinary Practices at Home: Evidence from a Range of Low- and Middle-Income Countries, NY: UNICEF)

According to statistics from UNICEF on violence in the family, in 2005-2006 eighteen per cent of girls and women aged 15-49 thought that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances. (UNICEF, 2009, Progress for Children: A report card on child protection, NY: UNICEF)

Research carried out in 2008 by a group of individuals and organisations identified the views, needs and fears of children, parents and teachers, based on focus groups, questionnaires, interviews, and reviews of relevant research and political and non-political materials. There was high support for school corporal punishment among parents (92%) and only 8% felt it should be abolished, but almost one in four (23%) believed children would be better behaved in class if corporal punishment was not used; 2% felt there would be no change in behaviour. Parents reported they would support prohibition if schools and teachers were properly resourced and trained in positive disciplinary methods. Few parents indicated that their opinions would be changed by media campaigns or celebrity endorsements. (Smith, C. & Mbozi, J. (2008), Removing Corporal Punishment from Schools: Integrating Partner Efforts, Georgetown: Business Unlimited Consulting Services)

The second Guyana Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), carried out by the Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF in 2006 found that of more than 5,000 households surveyed, 74% of children were subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical punishment; 16% experienced severe punishment; 59% minor physical punishment; 63% psychological punishment. Only 8% were not subjected to these forms of punishment. (Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF, 2008, Guyana Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006: Final Report, Georgetown, Guyana: Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF)

A survey by the Ministry of Education on the use of corporal punishment in schools, announced in June 2007, revealed that 53% of schools use corporal punishment and 47% do not. (Reported in Stabroek News, 8 June 2007)

An assessment of standards in the twenty residential care institutions in Guyana found that 55% of them allowed beating children as a punishment. (Ministry of Labour, Human Services and Social Security (2006), Assessment of procedural and physical standards in children’s residential care institutions in Guyana)

In February 2005, government-commissioned research was published based on accounts of almost 4,000 children aged 3-17 years about their experiences of violence in home, schools and the wider community. Corporal punishment was the fourth most commonly mentioned type of abuse (45%), after fighting, killing/murder and beating/beating-up, and various types of corporal punishment were mentioned by just under half the groups in every area (43-50%). Of those interviewed (aged 7-17), 87% had received corporal punishment of some kind (licks, lashes, beating) at least once in the home and 81% had been beaten or hit with a belt, cane, whip or other object; children as young as 3 years reported being disciplined by their parents with an object. There was no difference relating to gender, ethnicity or geographical area. One third (33%) of children described physical punishments leading to injury (bleeding skin, broken bones, blacking out). Corporal punishment as most commonly reported as being inflicted by mothers. Over a quarter (27%) of children in the children’s homes visited reported being physically hurt by a caregiver in the home, and a similar number reported being physically punished by staff at the New Opportunity Corps training school. (Cabral, C. & Speek-Warnery, V., 2005, Voices of Children: Experiences with Violence, Georgetown: Ministry of Labour, Human Services and Social Security/ Red Thread Women’s Development Programme/ UNICEF-Guyana)

A campaign was launched in 2004 by the National Commission on the Rights of the Child in primary and secondary schools in Georgetown to find out children’s views on corporal punishment. The survey found that 3,645 children in primary schools were in favour of corporal punishment, with 2,043 against it. In secondary schools, 932 children were in favour of corporal punishment compared with 1,335 against. (Reported in “Culture of beating children goes deep – workshop on alternatives told”, Stabroek News, 17 June 2004)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“The Committee expresses its concern at the fact that corporal punishment is still widely practised in the family, in schools, and in institutions, and that domestic legislation does not prohibit its use.

“The Committee recommends that the State party:

1. expressly prohibit corporal punishment by law in the family, schools and other institutions;
2. conduct awareness-raising campaigns to ensure that alternative forms of discipline are administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the Convention, especially article 28(2);
3. seek international technical assistance from, among others, UNICEF in this regard.”

(26 February 2004, CRC/C/15/Add.224, Concluding observations on initial report, paras. 31 and 32)

Committee Against Torture

“The disciplinary measures used in the treatment of prisoners are a matter of concern for the Committee, in particular section 37 of the Prison Act, 1998, which allows whipping, flogging and reduction of diet (arts. 2 and 11).

While taking note of the statement of the representative of the State party that these disciplinary measures have not been used, the State party should review all legal provisions which authorize these practices with a view to abolishing them as a matter of priority. The State party is reminded that treatment of prisoners should guarantee full respect for the dignity and human rights of all prisoners in conformity with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.”
(7 December 2006, CAT/C/GUY/CO/1, Concluding observations on initial report, para. 13)

Human Rights Committee

“The Committee is concerned that corporal punishment is still resorted to in the State party and regrets the lack of specific information on this issue.

“The State party should take legal and other measures to eliminate this practice (art.7).”
(25 April 2000, CCPR/C/79/Add.121, Concluding observations on second report, para.12)

Universal Periodic Review

Guyana was examined in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review process in 2010. In response to recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment of children, the Government drew attention to reforms underway in the penal system (amendments to the Training Schools Act and the Juvenile Offenders Act, see above) but defended the use of corporal punishment in other settings (14 May 2010, A/HRC/WG.6/8/L.13, Report of the Working Group, paras. 70(36)-(42); 13 September 2010, A/HRC/15/14/Add.1, Report of the Working Group: Addendum, paras. 9, 53 and 54; 1 October 2010, A/HRC/15/L.10,  Report of the Human Rights Council on its fifteenth session, para. 576). Examination in the second cycle is scheduled for 2015.