Right: corporal punishment in the home has had "respectability" over many generations, but it may not be too much longer before parental chastisement is considered unacceptable and "barbaric" behaviour.
Further implications The question of how far the law should seek to regulate the behaviour of individuals within private areas of their lives will always be a vexed one. The smacking of children is particularly controversial because it involves more than private individuals engaging in activities which they claim affect only themselves. With regard to smacking, those jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, which have largely outlawed it, have done so in a bid to protect children. There is substantial evidence to suggest that among those parents who abuse their children, the action is often justified as discipline. Experts have suggested that if the nexus between physical punishment and children's misbehaviour can be broken, this could serve to reduce the extent of child abuse. However, many parents, including those who do not use physical punishment with their children, will defend their right to do so. Critics of anti-smacking laws argue that these laws confuse occasional moderate physical punishment with abuse and treat one as though it were the other. They also claim that those who would outlaw smacking are ignoring the fact that there are circumstances where this form of punishment is necessary. Defenders of the practice therefore claim that outlawing smacking would criminalise ordinary citizens for infrequent, moderate and necessary actions. Despite the prevalence of the above arguments, a wide range of surveys and changes in the law in many other countries suggest that support for the physical punishment of children is waning. Given time it may be that smacking will be outlawed in Australia. This will only occur, however, when popular opinion has shifted sufficiently that such a law is no longer seen as an infringement by the State on the rights of parents. |