2009/19: Should it be illegal for parents to smack their children?<BR>

Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
smacking
children

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

2009/19: Should it be illegal for parents to smack their children?<BR>

2009/19: Should it be illegal for parents to smack their children?

What they said...
'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'
Herald Sun commentator, Susie O'Brien

'Paddling or spanking to reinforce the idea something is wrong or bad and dangerous is not assault and that is ridiculous'
Mr John Morrissey, a spokesperson for the Australian Families Association

The issue at a glance
On October 14, 2009, a Victorian mother was warned by police officers that she risked being charged with 'assault with a weapon' after her daughter revealed during a classroom discussion on bullying that her mother sometimes smacked her with a wooden spoon.
The news report of this incident, published in the Herald Sun on October 15, 2009, sparked immediate controversy.
There are those who have claimed that any physical punishment inflicted on children should be regarded as a crime. There are others who have claimed that some physical punishment, especially if it is given with an open hand, is often necessary and should be allowable.
The Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, was asked for his attitude on the issue. He admitted that he had sometimes smacked his children when they were young and he did not consider the imposition of moderate discipline was a basis for criminalising parents. Others have continued to disagree with him.

Background
There are a number of countries where it is illegal to subject children to any form of physical punishment.
States where children are protected from all corporal punishment include:
Sweden 1979 - 'Children ... may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment'.
Finland 1983 - 'A child shall ... not be corporally punished or otherwise humiliated'.
Norway 1987 - Declaration that 'the child shall not be exposed to physical violence'.
Denmark 1997 - Law was clarified to state 'a child may not be subjected to corporal punishment or other degrading treatment'.
Austria 1989 - 'Violence and inflicting physical or mental suffering is unlawful'.
Cyprus 1994 - Law to prevent 'violence ... against another member of the family'.
Italy 1996 - The supreme court ruled 'The use of violence for educational purposes can no longer be considered lawful'.
Latvia 1998 - Law on children's rights prevents corporal punishment.
Croatia 1999 - A law prohibits the physical punishment and humiliation of children.
Germany 2000 - 'Corporal punishment, psychological injuries and other humiliating measures are prohibited'.
Israel 2000 - The supreme court banned all parental corporal punishment.
Iceland 2003 - 'It is the parents' obligation to protect their child against any physical or mental violence'.
New Zealand 2007 - The law removed a provision which said parents could use 'reasonable force' to discipline their children, but gave police the discretion not to prosecute trivial cases.

Internet information
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is a non-affiliated group of four researchers who supply detailed background information and an overview of arguments on many controversial issues. Based in Canada, their emphasis is frequently American or European.
The site's treatment of 'Corporal punishment of children - spanking' can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm
This is a very good place to start. It gives an excellent, factually based introduction to the issue and then a detailed account of the arguments presented by those who support corporal punishment for children and those who oppose it.

Project NoSpank is the Internet site of Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education (PTAVE). PTAVE is a non-profit organization based in Alamo, California. The aim of the site is to educate parents, teachers and legislators so that corporal punishment is no longer used on children in either the home or at school.
An introduction to the website, outlining its aims can be found at http://www.nospank.net/intro.htm
The site is searchable from http://www.nospank.net/srch.htm
The site is extensive and repays careful exploration. Its table of contents gives readers access to current developments re corporal punishment in the United States and elsewhere, together with a wide range of expert opinion and media comment on the issue.
The table of contents can be found at http://www.nospank.net/toc.htm

The Australian Psychological Society's recommendations for how to discipline children without having to use violence can be found at http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/bullying/#s1

Bill Muehlenberg's opinion piece, 'Is smacking child abuse', written for the John Marks Ministries, is a moderate piece which defends the controlled use of physical punishment by parents on their children. The full text of the article can be found at http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/19784.htm

On September 25, 2009, The New Scientist published the report of a long-term study which suggests that smacking children can reduce their Iqs. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17856-smacking-hits-kids-iq.html

On October 15, 2009, the online opinion magazine, The Punch, published a commentary by Herald sun commentator, Susie O'Brien. O'Brien's opinion piece is titled, 'Wooden spooning is assault, no back chat' The full text of the article can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/wooden-spooning-is-assualt-no-back-chat/

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.'

Arguments against it being made illegal for parents to smack their children
1. Smacking a child is not assault
Many claim that smacking is a minor chastisement which should not be confused with abuse. There is a hell of a difference between a tap on the bum with a hand and abuse.
The Australian Families Association has claimed that parents were entitled to use moderate physical punishment to discipline their children and that the case which has attracted current media attention was 'nonsense'.
Mr John Morrissey, a spokesperson for the Australian Families Association has stated, 'Paddling or spanking to reinforce the idea something is wrong or bad and dangerous is not assault and that is ridiculous.'
Child psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, while preferring other means of shaping children's behaviour has stated,'An impulsive smack on the bum is not going to traumatise a child. I prefer parents not to do it but I am not going to criminalise them for doing it.'
There does, however, appear to be a difference between a parent striking a child using their open hand (a smack) and striking the child using an object.
At present it is unlawful to injure a child deliberately using great force or to assault them with an object, but it is not illegal to smack if no obvious physical damage is done.
Those who support parents' right to punish their children physically tend to argue that both commonsense, and the law, suggest it is a matter of degree. So long as the child is not struck with a
weapon and there is no physical injury sustained, then assault has not occurred.

2 . There are already laws to protect children from physical abuse
There are already a range of laws in place which either outlaw physical assault or are specifically designed to protect children from physical abuse. Among these laws are: in New South
Wales, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998; in Victoria, the Victoria Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 and the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005; in Queensland, The Child Protection Act 1999; in Western Australia, the Children and Community Service Act 2004; in South Australia, Children's Protection Act 1993; in Tasmania, Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997, in the Australian Capital Territory, the Children and Young Persons Act 1999 and in the Northern Territory, The Community Welfare Act.
Across Australia there is a system of compulsory reporting of child abuse in place. Any care giver, notably doctors, nurses and teachers, who has reason to suspect a child is being physically or sexually abused is required to report this to the authorities.
The case that started the current debate is cited as an indication that this system of compulsory reporting is generally working.
Eddie McGuire, in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on October 18, 2009, stated, 'On Thursday we saw Yea Primary School mum Claire Davidson on the front page of the Herald Sun after the school reported her to authorities for giving her nine-year-old daughter Anna a crack on the legs with a wooden spoon...
First up, congratulations to the school and the authorities involved in investigating the case...
When Anna dobbed in mum for whacking her with the wooden spoon the complaint deserved to be investigated.
Aside from some media annoyance the next day and maybe some red faces in the short term, mother Claire's parenting was vindicated while it was proved that Anna was in a safe environment.
Mission accomplished for the school and the authorities.'

3. Smacking may be necessary to preserve a child's safety
It has been claimed that there are some circumstances in which the only way to try to ensure a child's safety is to use moderate physical punishment.
Gail Kavanagh, writing for the online opinion site Helium, has stated, 'According to the British Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, accidents in the home are the commonest cause of death to children under five in that country. Most of these fatal accidents occur in the living room.
In 2003, the Palm Beach County Child Fatality Review and Prevention Project (CRR) found that preventable accidents and injuries was the number one killer of children across the USA.
You may well ask what statistics like these have to do with smacking children? Because accidents, no matter how vigilant we are, will happen. When a child runs out into traffic, its only hope is that a quick-witted parent or other adult will grab it in time and administer a quick, sharp slap. Why? Because it is better the child associates the action of running out into traffic with a slap from a caring adult rather than the impact of a car.
When children do stupid or reckless things (and they will) they need to know that these things can cause pain. A slap on the hand that is trying to insert a nail into an electrical socket is considerably less harmful than an electric shock but the child understands that the action he or she was engaged in causes pain.'
It has further been argued that young children are too young to be amenable to reason and therefore physical punishment may sometimes be necessary. Carrie-Ann Campbell in an opinion piece. also published on the online opinion site Helium, stated, 'Simple fact- children of five years and younger in general cannot reason. There is no point whatsoever in attempting to calmly reason with a howling, screaming child in the midst of a tantrum ... there is no point in attempting to reason with little children because by nature they are unreasonable- little children are by nature self-centred, and they will not grow out of it unless they are shown it is unacceptable.'

4. Most parents only smack their children as a last resort
It has been claimed that most parents exercise a range of control measures to manage their children's behaviour and only have recourse to physical punishment as a final strategy or when it appears that nothing else is likely to be effective.
Cheryl Critchley, in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on October 17, 2009, claimed, 'Parents I know who smack are usually at the end of their tether and use it as a last resort. Many feel awful afterwards.
Smacking is usually triggered by an incident putting the child or someone else in danger, or the child repeatedly breaking a basic rule.
One friend with three small children has hit them on the bottom after something serious like biting or continually ignoring requests not to do something destructive.'
Bill Muluehenberg in an opinion piece published on the John Marks Ministry Internet site has similarly stated, 'Most parents know ... that a smack done in love, as a last resort, is often the most loving thing they can do. It is part of parental control. The anti-smackers usually say reasoning and discussion is much better than smacking. Do these experts actually have any kids of their own? Many don't, I suspect.'
A 2007 Scottish Executive study, Growing Up In Scotland, revealed that 42 per cent of parents surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: 'It may not be a good thing to smack, but sometimes it is the only thing that will work.'

5. A majority of Australians believe parents should be able to smack their children
More than 93% of some 8000 respondents to a poll on The Herald Sun's Internet site, heraldsun.com.au and other News Ltd websites, said parents should be allowed to smack their children if they see fit.
Nationally, the online poll results were:
heraldsun.com.au (Victoria) - 92 per cent in favour, 8 per cent against
dailytelegraph.com.au (New South Wales) - 95 per cent in favour of smacking, 5 per cent against
couriermail.com.au (Queenslnd) - 95 per cent in favour, 5 per cent against
news.com.au (Australia-wide - The Australian) - 94 per cent in favour, 6 per cent against
adelaidenow.com.au (South Australia) - 92 per cent in favour, 8 per cent against
perthnow.com.au (Western Australia0 - 92 per cent in favour, 8 per cent against
A total of 7860 people voted nationwide.
It has been claimed that any change in law would be very difficult to implement as it is not supported by a majority of parents.

6. A law against parents smacking their children would be unenforceable
It has been claimed that any law attempting to ban the smacking of children, especially within the home, would be unenforceable.
The witnesses to such a supposed 'crime' would generally be the child and his/her parent. How would it be possible to determine the degree of force applied when giving punishment, or would the slightest tap be regarded as a criminal offence?
In 2001, Scotland was about to introduce a law prohibiting the physical punishment of children under three. Lord James Douglas Hamilton, the justice spokesman for the Scottish Tories, described the smacking ban as an insult to parents, adding, 'These proposals reek of the nanny state. The ban on the smacking of toddlers is totally unenforceable, misconceived and an unnecessary interference in the way parents choose to bring up their children.'
Again, when Britain was considering banning smacking in 2004, a Tory spokesman for the family, Theresa May, said there was no point to legislation which may prove to be 'unenforceable'. Ms May asked, 'Who will decide what constitutes an acceptable smack and one which breaks the law?' At the same time British police also warned that such a law was likely to be unenforceable.
In 2007, in New Zealand, when a bill was being debated to make the smacking of children illegal, a poll of 497 people conducted by Research New Zealand showed 73 percent of New Zealanders were opposed to the bill. Along with the strong opposition to the legislation, the poll also showed 72 percent of people believed if the law were passed it would be unenforceable.

Further implications
No state government, nor the federal government has indicated that it intends to change the law to deliberately extend the definition of assault so that it clearly includes any physical punishment of children. The attitude of the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, together with a number of state leaders, indicates that they see no need to alter current law. Further, there would appear to be no widespread popular support for such a change in the law. A recent survey conducted by The Herald Sun and other related newspapers indicates that there is overwhelming support for parents to be able to legally smack their children.
This puts Australia in clear distinction to New Zealand. In 2007, New Zealand effectively outlawed smacking children by removing a statutory defence for parents. A private Bill sponsored by a Green Party MP, successfully removed an existing legal defence of 'reasonable force' to correct child..
The law's sponsor, Sue Bradford of the Green Party, said, 'It is about our children and what I believe is their God-given right to grow up secure in the love of their family, valued as equal citizens to the rest of us and without the constant threat of legalised violence being used against them.'
Mainstream church groups and child welfare organisations strongly supported the change. A late compromise adopted by MPs gave police the discretion not to prosecute parents if a smacking incident is considered minor.
A government-sponsored survey in 2009 showed over 90 percent of respondents did not support the change in law and wished to see a modification of the 2007 law to legitimise the corporal punishment of children. Despite this, the New Zealand government has decided to keep the 2007 legislation. This may be because the 2007 law was motivated by the desire to reduce child abuse within the home by sending the clear message that no physical attacks on children were acceptable. Australian governments do not seem to share the view that smacking children sends a dangerous social message.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue
H/SUN, September 25, page 9, news item by Sikora and Masanauskas, `Spanking lowers IQ'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/research-shows-kids-suffer-more-than-parents-know/story-e6frf7l6-1225779327104

H/SUN, October 15, page 1, news item by Georgie Pilcher, `Smacking on trial / Mum warned over wooden spoon discipline'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria-divided-on-the-morality-of-corporal-punishment-after-wooden-spoon-episode/story-e6frf7jo-1225786812625

H/SUN, October 20, page 23, comment by Susie O'Brien, `No excuse for hitting our kids'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/no-excuse-for-hitting-our-kids/story-e6frfhqf-1225788488365

H/SUN, October 17, page 17, news item, `PM: a smack works'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/a-smack-works-says-kevin-rudd/story-e6frf7l6-1225787725767

H/SUN, October 16, page 47, comment by Cheryl Critchley, `Smacking is distinct from child abuse'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/smacking-is-distinct-from-child-abuse/story-e6frfhqf-1225787344987

H/SUN, October 16, page 7, news item (photos) by Georgie Pilcher, Matt Johnston, `Yes, it's OK to give the kids a smack'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/yes-its-ok-to-give-the-kids-a-smack-parents-say-overwhelmingly/story-e6frf7jo-1225787330727

H/SUN, October 16, page 38-39, letters / online comments (photos) under general heading, `All need to learn right from wrong'.

No link directly to the above item, but the results of a Herald-Sun survey on the rights and wrongs of smacking, with background on the original "wooden spoon" alleged incident are available at the below link:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mother-accused-of-assault-after-disciplining-child-with-a-wooden-spoon/story-e6frf7jo-1225786812510