Right: an early cartoon from Germany, depicting a teacher caning a student. Today, the same country bans corporal punishment altogether, whether inflicted by teachers, parents or anyone else.
.
Arguments in favour of making it illegal for parents to smack their children
1. Smacking is assault
There are those who argue that any legal definition that denies children protection when they are struck is wrong.
Herald Sun commentator, Susie O'Brien has stated, 'All forms of smacking children should be banned, it shouldn't matter whether it is hand, spoon or belt. It is still physical assault and our children deserve better.'
It has also been argued that once using any form of force against children is allowed, parents with less knowledge or self-control can easily overstep the bounds and seriously harm their offspring. Susie O'Brien has also pointed to this danger. Ms O'Brien has stated, 'Sure, most parents who smack do so with minimum force and only as a last resort. But there are some who, given the OK to hit their kids, don't know when to stop. And it's their children who need the protection a total ban would bring.'
Conrad Reyners on the No Right Turn Internet site has claimed in June 2009, 'Smacking is assault. It's the physical and intentional application of violence towards another human being. A vulnerable, trusting and defenceless human being...
Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.
A smack quite clearly fits into this definition. If that doesn't work - then pose the question; is smacking my wife assault? Is smacking a stranger assault? Is smacking my pet animal abuse? These questions nicely illustrate the absurdity of claiming smacking a child is not assault.'.
2. Other groups in society cannot be legally struck
It has been stated that if it is regarded as both illegal and wrong to strike any other member of society, then it should be equally regarded as wrong to strike children. Herald sun commentator, Susie O'Brien, has stated, 'You aren't allowed to smack your partner, so why should you be allowed to smack your child?'
The injustice of using physical force to discipline children when it cannot be used on other groups has been pointed out by football commentator Eddie McGuire. Mr McGuire has stated, 'Would any adult seriously tolerate a situation at work or at home in which someone of vastly stronger physical powers "inspired" them to better work practices by saying "if you don't perform better I'm going to hit you hard enough to physically hurt and mentally intimidate you"? Of course not.
If an adult was seen to hit a mentally disabled person there would be uproar, but is it okay to whack a mentally growing human who is not yet near adult intellect?
3. Teachers are not allowed to use corporal punishment of any kind
It has been argued that if corporal punishment is no longer allowed in schools it should not be necessary for parents. The following is an account of how corporal punishment was used in Victorian schools and when and why it was abolished.
Corporal punishment was a form of discipline for serious misdemeanours by mostly male students in primary and secondary, government and independent schools. This mode of physical punishment included slapping or smacking of the limbs, but usually meant a small number of short, sharp and painful hits inflicted by a headmaster or teacher wielding a cane or leather strap to a student's extended open hand or, in some cases, bare buttocks. Girls at primary school were slapped, or rapped with rulers over the knuckles or on the palms.
Corporal punishment symbolised the assertion of a teacher's ultimate authority and was calculated by its proponents to maximise an offender's humiliation or sense of shame for a misdeed. To this end it was administered in an at times elaborately ritualised manner: an offender was not only formally summoned, but seen to be summoned, and then kept waiting until finally ushered in to the privacy of a secluded office for both verbal and physical rebuke. 'The strap', as corporal punishment was mostly known, or 'the cuts' became part of schoolboy folklore. To receive 'six of the best' was a point of honour among the most hardened of juvenile cases. Children's remedies included rubbing the palms with the leaves of peppercorn trees, or sitting on one's hands..
Opponents of the practice derided it as barbarism. Corporal punishment was abolished in Victorian government schools in 1983.
4. There are other ways to discipline children
Those who oppose smacking children argue that there are many ways, other than by smacking, to control children's behaviour. They further claim that, for some parents, smacking is merely a means of avoiding the hard work of developing more effect means of discipline.
Herald Sun commentator, Susie O'Brien, has stated, 'Now, as a parent of three young kids, I know how hard it is to get discipline right. In fact, it's ... hard work.
I also know that smacking is a lazy form of discipline; it's often a sign that the parents and not just the kids have lost control.'
Melbourne child psychologist, Dr Carr-Gregg has said that hitting children should never be the main disciplinary tool - giving them time out was, in his view, the best option.
Numbers of international readers responded to the Australian debate surround the use of corporal punishment by parents. Terri-Louise Fryar of Stockholm, Sweden, asked, 'Why should an adult have the right to hit someone that is smaller than them? There are other ways to discipline children without laying a hand on them.'
The Australian Psychological Society makes the following recommendations to help parents manage their children without violent punishment. 'A common issue for parents is how to manage a child's behaviour in an effective way, without being aggressive or punishing the child. It is vital to have positive interactions with your child that encourage good behaviour, rather than focusing only on difficult behaviour. It is also important for parents to make and keep to some rules in the household that are appropriate for the age of the child and are reasonable and meaningful. It is in the best interests of the child for the parents to be able to manage the child's behaviour in ways that will help the child to develop and maintain good relationships with other people.
Some basic principles of effective parenting/disciplining follow.
Notice, praise and encourage good behaviour rather than focussing on bad behaviour.
Establish fair rules:
Make as few rules as possible and ensure that they are clear;
Involve children in making the rules if possible;
Form agreements with children rather than imposing your will on them; and
Explain why the rules are important.
Agree on consequences that are appropriate for the age of the child, such as:
logical consequences (for example, removal of toy from a pre-schooler if the child is breaking it or using it to damage something);
'time-out' (such as time out for fighting to give children time to calm down). A useful rule of thumb is to place a child in time out for increasing amounts of time as the child gets older, starting, for example, at three minutes for a three-year-old, four minutes for a four-year-old, and so on. Some professionals recommend using a time out chair in the same room as the family, whereas others prefer a room that removes the child from the rest of the family for a short period of time; and
withdrawal of privileges (taking away something they enjoy, or missing out on a favourite activity, like watching television). Withdrawing privileges is more appropriate for older children (perhaps from five or six years of age) who are able to link their behaviour at one period in time with a consequence that takes place at a later time.
Be consistent in applying consequences. Stay calm.
Research shows that physical punishment for bad behaviour does not work as well as other ways of disciplining children.
5. Smacking teaches children that violence is legitimate
It has been claimed that if parents smack children in any form then they are teaching their children that violence is an acceptable way to make a point.
This argument has been put by Herald Sun commentator, Susie O'Brien, who has stated, 'What kind of message are we sending our children when we slap them? That violence is acceptable, that's what.' Ms O'Brien has further noted, 'It also makes no sense to me to declare war on thugs in the street and yet still allow parents to hit their kids.' Susie O'Brien seems to be suggesting that smacking children models violence and may play a part in the street violence displayed by some adolescent youths.
There are those who argue that, because it teaches acceptable behaviours and does not encourage children to have genuine self-control, smacking is not an effective form of discipline.
Mr Andrew McCallum, a spokesperson for the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies has said that hitting children was never acceptable. Mr McCallum has stated, 'I don't think that's productive. Any form of violence is brutalising.'
Irish clinical psychologist David Coleman has stated, 'By threatening and spanking them you are role modelling an aggressive way of interacting with others. It may be that this too influences their decision to hit out at each other.'
6. Smacking children can harm their intellectual development
It has been claimed that smacking can cause long-term intellectual damage to children. United States-based sociologist Professor Murray Straus, who has studied the impact of smacking for 40 years, has likened the effects of corporal punishment to post-traumatic stress, affecting a child's mental development.
After studying 800 toddlers aged between two and four over a four-year period, Professor Straus found those who were subjected to smacking had an IQ five points lower than that of children who were not physically disciplined.
Professor Straus has further stated, 'The results of this research have major implications for the well-being of children across the globe.
All parents want smart children. This research shows that avoiding smacking and correcting misbehaviour in other ways can help that.'
The new research makes a stronger case for a cause-effect relationship between spanking and intelligence than other studies. This is because it examined children over the course of four years and accounted for many confounding variables, such as a parent's ethnicity, education and whether they read to their children or not.
There are others who have suggested that being beaten in the name of discipline can cause serious psychological and emotional harm. Football commentator, Eddie McGuire, has stated, 'When I think back to some of the poor kids who were on the receiving end of thrashings at home and at school because of their behaviour, with nowhere to hide from the constant physical and mental intimidation they received, it is little wonder some turned out to be lunatics.'