Why do we smack our children?
Robert Ludbrook: June 2002 Most New Zealanders now condemn all forms of interpersonal violence and many would like to see perpetrators of violence treated harshly when they appear before the Courts. There is one major exception to this revulsion towards violence – and that is the belief that hitting children is an appropriate and effective means of controlling the behaviour of children. Many of us have experienced physical punishment at school or in the home. It is part of our life experience. We know that it hurt and that it was humiliating and that we felt betrayed that parents, family members or teachers should deliberately hurt us. The idea that physical punishment is the best way to stop child misbehaviour has become part of the belief system of many New Zealand parents. It is part of our life experience, something we have learned as children and accept when we become parents or carers of children. Smacking children is seen as a normal and acceptable feature of child-rearing. This widespread belief receives legal backing from s59 Crimes Act 1961 which states that it is a defence to assault under both criminal and civil law to show that a parent or carer has used reasonable force to correct the behaviour of a child in his or her care. Because the view that smacking children is normal and acceptable has become internalised we abdicate logic and common sense. Children are the smallest and most vulnerable (physically and emotionally) group in society. They are the most impressionable and attitudes formed in childhood are likely to persist into adulthood. It defeats logic that our criminal and civil law singles out children as the only group in society that may be subject to physical violence. There is now overwhelming evidence that hitting children is not a particularly effective form of discipline, that it breaches local and international human rights standards and, most seriously of all, that it will often have harmful short and long term effects on children and their physical, emotional and social development. Ten reasons why physical punishment is ineffective and wrong 1.Children are the smallest and physically weakest group in our society. Smacking, caning and strapping children can, and often does result in physical injury. 2. New Zealand law makes no distinction based on the age of the child and parents are permitted to smack a tiny baby, a toddler, a school child or even a young person who has completed his or her education. There is broad consensus that it is acceptable to smack babies and small children. This is despite the fact that using physical punishment against this age group is dangerous and is ineffective at changing their behaviour. It is likely that hitting older teenagers will provoke a negative or violent response. 3. Children rely on their parents and carers to protect them from harm. It is confusing and upsetting for children to have the people they love and trust hit them deliberately with the intention of causing fear and pain 4. The message writ large in modern society is that physical violence is wrong and not an acceptable method of responding even if other people behave badly or make one angry. Any use of physical force against another person is an assault in law and a criminal offence
(although many incidents of minor violence are never reported to the Police or reported but not prosecuted). It is quite illogical and unacceptable that children are the only section of society who can be hit without it being a criminal offence. 5. The Domestic Violence Act 1995 greatly strengthened the powers of the Courts to protect people from physical and psychological violence. A protection order can be made against a person who uses or threatens violence to a spouse, relative, girl/boy friend or partner. And a protection order can be made against a parent or carer who assaults another adult in the presence or hearing of a child. But s59 Crimes Act has been held to overrule the specific provisions of the Domestic Protection Act so that a parent or carer who uses reasonable force to punish a child cannot be held to have committed physical abuse and so cannot be restrained by a protection order. 6. Laws which allow the physical punishment of children have now been repealed or struck down by the Courts in most European countries (but not in Britain). Countries that have banned physical punishment include Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Latvia, Croatia, Germany and Italy. 7. The United Nation Convention in the Rights of the Child (which was adopted by New Zealand in 1993) requires that children be given special protection from violence and abuse and the U.N. Committee which overseas compliance with the Convention in 1997 urged New Zealand to repeal s59 Crimes Act in order to comply with the terms of the Convention. 8. Research shows that people who experienced frequent or harsh physical punishment in childhood have a disproportionate tendency to act in a violent manner and to commit criminal offences. They also have a higher incidence of mental illness. 9. History shows that there has been a progressive reduction in situations in which the law allows people to resort to physical force to punish children. In New Zealand physical punishment was banned as a Court imposed punishment in 1941, prohibited in child care centres in 1985 and in Child, Youth and Family residential institutions in 1986, and made unlawful in all state and private schools in 1990. It is illogical that what is deemed unacceptable in every other situation should be permissible in the home? 10. Child Youth and Family, the government agency which administers child protection services in New Zealand is opposed to the use of physical punishment of children and has run several campaigns urging parents to using other methods to discipline their children. Myths and misconceptions about physical punishment Continuing support for physical punishment of children is based on a number of myths and misconceptions: The Bible tells parents that if they spare the rod they will spoil the child. It is true that the Old Testament (particularly the Book of Proverbs) speaks of ‘sparing the rod and spoiling the child’ but the writings of the prophets in pre-Christian times are hardly an appropriate parenting guide over 2000 years later. Jesus Christ always promoted the notion that children should be treated with gentleness and kindness. Using physical force is often necessary to protect children from danger It is argued that a light smack will stop a child from running out onto the road, touching a hot element or playing with an electrical socket. Adults do have a responsibility to protect children (especially small children) from harm and the law allows them to restrain children to protect them from danger. With small children it is better to protect them by erecting a fence or a gate to prevent them from running into the road and to install child-proof appliances and
electrical sockets. Children have to be taught right from wrong The purpose of smacking children is to cause them pain in the belief that this will stop them behaving in an unacceptable way and deter them from future misbehaviour. While a smack may stop a child in his or her tracks, it is not an effective deterrent because the child’s focus will be on the aggressive act and on the pain and not on the reason why the child’s behaviour is unacceptable. Smacking children is likely to evoke tears of distress from the child or an angry retort and this can result in a cycle of increasingly heavy punishment to stop the child crying or to punish the child further. Children are naturally naughty and they have to be taught firmly how to behave acceptably The idea that children are untamed savages who have to be civilised is a nonsense. Children are very anxious to gain the love and approval of their parents and carers. They also have a need to develop towards independence. It is true that children need guidance and discipline but this can be provided without resort to physical punishment. There is now a considerable literature on non-violent ways of managing children’s behaviour. Parents should be free to bring up their children as they think best Parents enjoy a good deal of freedom in the way in which they bring up their children but it is unrealistic to believe that they have or should have absolute freedom. Parents are required to send their children to school, they are required to provide them with food, clothing, medical treatment and the necessities of life. They have a legal duty to ensure their care and protection. There is nothing objectionable in amending the law so as to give children the same protection from violence within the family as all children and all adults enjoy in the outside world. There is no harm in a loving smack Yes there is!. Children find it hard to understand that a person who hits them is doing it out of love. The purpose of smacking a child is to cause pain or fear. For a parent to say ‘ I am causing you pain and fear because I love you’ gives the child a very confused message. We would not today accept a man’s explanation that he only beats his wife because he loves her. Changing the law will not change people’s behaviour Experience in European countries that have banned corporal punishment has shown that a change in the law does have an influence on parents’ attitudes and behaviour. There is more likely to be a change in parental attitudes towards physical punishment if any law change is preceded or accompanied by education programs stressing the negative effects of smacking children and suggesting alternative methods of discipline. The law should not turn caring parents into criminals If s59 is repealed, children will be treated in the same way as all other human beings. Currently the law discriminates against children on the grounds of their age – giving them less protection from physical assaults than adults enjoy. Just because the law is changed does not mean that hundreds of conscientious parents will be brought before the Courts or locked up in prisons. Children rarely make complaints to the Police about their parents’ behaviour. The Police are likely to be reluctant to prosecute parents who smack their children except where there are witnesses and the child is injured. Judges and juries have traditionally been reluctant to convict them. In countries such as Sweden (which banned corporal punishment 25 years ago) there was no flood of prosecutions of parents. There was however a significant reduction in the number of child abuse interventions.
Children who are not smacked will turn into badly behaved brats In fact the research shows the exact opposite: that children who have been harshly or frequently punished are more likely to break the law and are more likely to resort to physical violence than those who have not. There are other more effective ways of teaching children good behaviour. Children prefer a quick smack than other punishments Where children have been asked by researchers how they feel about being smacked the majority condemn smacking as a form of punishment and favour alternatives such as grounding or extra chores. Smacking children is preferable to other forms of punishment It is sometimes argued that smacking children is to be preferred to other forms of punishment which distress or humiliate children. Those opposed to physical punishment are equally opposed to other forms of punishment that belittle, humiliate or frighten children. Abolishing smacking may transgress cultural beliefs In some cultures harsh physical discipline is part of deeply held cultural beliefs and practices. It is argued that it is culturally insensitive and discriminatory to deny people from such cultures the right to hit children. The short answer to this argument is that there are certain fundamental rights (of which the right to protection from physical violence is one) that cannot be transgressed on the basis of recognition of other cultural beliefs and practices. By way of analogy it is accepted under New Zealand law that female genital mutilation is illegal although it accords with deeply held cultural beliefs in some societies. Ambiguity and uncertainty of current legal position One point that is seldom considered in relation to corporal punishment is that the current law is ambiguous and places adults who use physical punishment at risk. The law gives parents mixed messages sometimes saying ‘It is OK to hit your children’ at other times saying ‘hitting children is unacceptable’. Section 59 allows parents and carers to use reasonable force to correct their children’s misbehaviour. But what is reasonable force? In the end it is a judge or jury who will decide on what is or is not reasonable and a review of decided cases shows a considerable variation in views on the topic. While section 59 permits parental corporal punishment it has become clear in recent Family Court decisions that where a father and mother are competing for custody of their children or a court is deciding whether access should be supervised the court will look with disfavour on a parent who uses harsh or frequent corporal punishment. The Domestic Violence Act 1995 allows children to apply to court for a protection order where a parent or carer has used violence towards them. Violence is defined to include physical abuse, psychological abuse and threats of violence. While it is believed that this law does not alter the right of parents to use physical punishment to correct their children some lawyers believe that this is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Parents who hit their children may face the embarrassment of having a protection order made against them.
For further information contact YouthLaw or EPOCH New Zealand. P.O. Box 11-996, Manners St., Wellington
Information is also available on the following websites: EPOCH NZ: http://epochnz.virtualave.net EPOCH UK: childrenareunbeatable.org.uk GLOBAL INITIATIVE: www.stophitting.com GLOBAL INITIATIVE www.endcorporalpunishment.org United States: www.nospank.net www.positiveparenting.com www.unh.edu/frl Books and Reports: Spare the Child Jane and James Ritchie publisher ?(199?) Legal and Social Aspects of the Physical Punishment of Children Judy Cashmore and Nicola de Haas, Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health (1995)