Summary of law reform necessary to achieve full prohibition

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

The right to inflict “reasonable and moderate” punishment on children is recognised in common law. It does not appear to be confirmed in written law, but legal provisions against violence and abuse are not interpreted as prohibiting corporal punishment in childrearing. The near universal acceptance of violence in childrearing necessitates clarity in law that no degree or kind of corporal punishment is acceptable or lawful. Explicit prohibition should be enacted of all corporal punishment in all settings, including the family home and all settings where adults have authority over children, together with explicit repeal of the common law defence.

Explicit prohibition should be enacted in relation to all schools, public and private, in addition to repeal of the common law defence. All provisions authorising corporal punishment as a sentence for crime and as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions should be repealed, including the Flogging Regulation Act (1903) and the Crime (Prevention of) Act (1942).

Current legality of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home under the common law right to inflict “reasonable and moderate” punishment. The Child Care and Protection Act (2004) does not confirm a right to administer punishment or similar, but provisions against violence and abuse in that Act and in the Offences Against the Person Act, the Domestic Violence Act (1996) and the Constitution (1962, amended 2001) are not interpreted as prohibiting corporal punishment in childrearing.

Schools

Corporal punishment is lawful in schools. There is no provision for it in the Education Act 1965 or in the Education Regulations, but a teacher is justified in administering “moderate and reasonable” corporal punishment under common law (Ryan v Fildes [1983] 3 All E.R.517). The Government has stated its intention to abolish corporal punishment in schools and meanwhile has informed all public schools not to use it. Corporal punishment is already prohibited in “basic schools” (see below) and as at March 2010 legislation to prohibit in other schools is under discussion.

Penal system

Corporal punishment is unlawful as a sentence for crime. It was ruled unconstitutional by the Jamaican Court of Appeal in December 1998 and there is no provision for it in the Criminal Justice (Reform) Act, the Corrections Act (1985, amended 1995) and the Child Care and Protection Act. As at July 2009, a bill had been drafted to repeal the Flogging Regulation Act (1903) and the Crime (Prevention of) Act (1942), which provide for judicial corporal punishment and its disciplinary use in penal institutions.

Corporal punishment is unlawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions under article 62 of the Child Care and Protection Act, but provisions for disciplinary corporal punishment in the Flogging Regulation Act have yet to be repealed.

Alternative care

Corporal punishment of children up to the age of 6 in early childhood institutions (known as basic schools) is prohibited under the Act to Provide for the Regulation and Management of Early Childhood Institutions and for other Connected Matters, passed in January 2005. It is prohibited in other institutions and forms of childcare (places of safety) under article 62 of the Child Care and Protection Act. Permitted disciplinary measures in children’s homes are prescribed by the Child Care and Protection (Children’s Homes) Regulations (No. 22 of 2005) and do not include corporal punishment.

Prevalence research

According to statistics from UNICEF on violence in the family, 87% of children aged 2-14 experienced physical punishment and/or psychological aggression in 2005-2006: 61% experienced physical punishment and psychological aggression, 14% experienced psychological aggression only and 12% experienced physical punishment only; 12% of children aged 2-9 were hit on the face, head or ears, hit repeatedly or hit hard (6% disabled children, 6% non-disabled). In total, 73% of children experienced physical punishment, while only 34% of mothers and caregivers believe physical punishment is necessary in childrearing. Of girls and women aged 15-49, 6% think 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)

According to a study reported in The Gleaner in March 2007, in a survey of teachers from all types of primary educational settings, one in four admitted to flogging students often and one in three to pinching and thumping them. Boys were more likely to be flogged. Less than a quarter of teachers believed beating was effective, and almost half identified negative effects they had seen, including students becoming oppositional, aggressive, destructive towards school property, gathering peer support against teachers, and becoming “disconnected” from school activities. (Reported in Jamaica Gleaner Online, 21 March 2007)

Over 200 parents (71.3% mothers, 6.4% fathers, and other caregivers) from across six parishes, of 100 boys and 103 girls aged between 5 and 7, completed questionnaires which were administered by trained interviewers, followed by an investigation into the frequency of use of specific disciplinary methods. Of the 193 parents who responded to questionnaires about the disciplinary methods they used in their homes, 28% reported that non-violent methods were most commonly used; 25.4% reported psychological aggression and 46.6% physical assault. Of those reporting physical assault, 1% reported pinching, 31.1% spanking, 13% beating with an object, 1% shaking, and 0.5% tying of hands. In the week prior to the interview, 1% reported spanking more than 7 times, 3.1% 4-6 times, and 27.4% 1-3 times. Beating with a strap was reported as occurring 1-3 times over the same period by 14.6% of respondents. (Samms-Vaughan, M., Williams, S. & Brown, J. (2004), Disciplinary Practices among parents of six-year-olds in Jamaica, University of the West Indies)

Research was undertaken into the experiences of 1,720 children aged 11-12 (51.5% girls, 48.4% boys; 68.7% in primary schools, 32.3% in secondary schools) on conflict resolution measures between themselves and adults at home and school (the schools were in two urban parishes). Overall, 97.2% of children reported a lifetime experience of verbal aggression or violence resulting from conflict with adults in the home, with 82.3% reporting verbal aggression, 87.4% minor violence, and 84.8% severe violence. The preferred methods of resolving conflict between adults and children in the home were pushing, grabbing and slapping (86%) or beating with an object (84.2%). The main cause of conflict was reported as disobedience (reported by 73.5% of children). The mother was most frequently reported as responsible for administering discipline (73.7%, cf. fathers 30.5%, uncles and aunts 9.2%, grandparents 7.6%, siblings 4.6% and step-parents 2.7%). With regard to conflict resolution between teachers and children, a total of 86.2% of children reported a lifetime prevalence of verbal aggression or physical violence, with verbal aggression reported by 49.3%, minor violence by 74% and severe violence by 75.4%. The most common forms of resolving conflict were reported as pushing, grabbing or slapping (with a lifetime prevalence of 70.8%) and beating with an object (75.3%). For 64% of children there were no incidents in the four weeks prior to the survey, but for some such incidents occurred daily. Most physical punishment was administered by the class teacher (83.3%), followed by the principal (9.1%), the vice principal (3.9%) and subject teachers (1.7%). (Samms-Vaughan, M. et al. (2004), “Jamaican Children’s Experiences of Corporal Punishment at Home and School”, University of the West Indies/Ministry of Health, University of Missouri-Columbia)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“The Committee urges the State party to considerably strengthen its efforts to address and condemn violence in society, including violence against women and children, particularly in the context of the family, as well as in schools and other environments. Further, it recommends that the State party take steps to monitor and address any incidents of violence and sexual or other abuse against children and take measures to ensure the rehabilitation of traumatized and victimized children by, inter alia:

1. carrying out public education campaigns about the negative consequences of violence and ill-treatment of children and promoting positive, non-violent forms of conflict resolution and discipline, especially within the family and in the educational system;
2. taking all legislative measures to prohibit all forms of physical and mental violence, including corporal punishment and sexual abuse, against children in all contexts in society as well as taking effective measures for the prevention of violent acts committed within the family, in schools and by the police and other State agents, making sure that perpetrators of these violent acts are brought to justice, putting an end to the practise of impunity;
3. providing care, recovery and reintegration for child victims of direct or indirect violence and ensuring that the child victim is not revictimized in legal proceedings and that his/her privacy is protected;
4. taking into consideration the recommendations of the Committee adopted on its days of general discussion on children and violence (CRC/C/100, para.866 and CRC/C/111, paras.701-745);

“The Committee welcomes the State party’s progress in the field of education, but remains concerned about:
e) the use of corporal punishment in schools.

“The Committee recommends that the State party, in the light of the Committee’s general comment on article 29 (1) of the Convention (aims of education):
e) adopt appropriate legislative measures to combat the use of corporal punishment in the schools….”
(4 July 2003, CRC/C/15/Add.210, Concluding observations on second report, paras.33, 48 and 49)

“The Committee is concerned that in the framework of the legislative reform under way, a number of areas remain where national legislation has not yet been brought into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention, including its general principles, as reflected in articles 2, 3, 6 and 12. In this regard, the Committee’s concerns relate in particular to the definition of the child, the need to protect children against corporal punishment….”
(15 February 1995, CRC/C/15/Add.32, Concluding observations on initial report, para.7)

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

“The Committee is profoundly concerned about the violence that has apparently become widespread in the State party. It is reported that over 1,000 people have been murdered in the year 2001 alone and that “tribal” politics is such that warlords rule large sections of the capital city where they are involved in extortion, drugs and prostitution. The Committee is particularly concerned that violence – including domestic and sexual violence – is committed against women of all ages and against children. According to reports from non-governmental organizations, children are regularly flogged and even threatened with weapons and child-rearing practices include corporal punishment of children in the home and in schools. The fact that these acts are committed with impunity constitutes a serious violation by the State party of its Covenant obligations.”
(30 November 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.75, Concluding observations on second report, para.14)

Human Rights Committee

“The Committee is deeply concerned about the fact that the Flogging Regulation Act, 1903 and the Crime (Prevention of) Act, 1942 are still in force, which provide for and regulate corporal punishment both as a penalty for certain crimes and as a penalty for breach of prison rules of other regulations. In this regard:

The Committee recommends that both Acts be repealed, as they are contrary to article 7 of the Covenant.”
(19 November 1997, CCPR/C/79/Add.83, Concluding observations on second report, para. 15)