Right: The threat of corporal punishment at school and in the home is generally seen as affecting the mental health of children - although some researchers believe that smacking, slapping has its place.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of laws to prevent parents physically punishing their children
1. Physically punishing children creates life-long emotional, psychological, and cognitive problems
Numerous studies have indicated that the physical punishment of children predisposes them to emotional and physiological disorders such as anxiety and depression that can persist into later life.
In June 2022, the Australian Child Maltreatment Study released some of the preliminary findings of its survey of 8,500 Australians between the ages of 16 and 65+. Among these findings were that females who experienced corporal punishment from their parents were 1.8 times more likely to have a major depressive disorder in their lifetime, and 2.1 times more likely to experience generalised anxiety. Males were 1.7 and 1.6 times more likely to develop depression and anxiety respectively. One of the lead researchers, Professor Daryl Higgins, the director of the Institute of Child Protection Studies at the Australian Catholic University, has stated, 'The only benefit is immediate compliance, but we know it's clearly linked to long term harm...If you want to reduce population level anxiety for women and men, don't hit them as children. There is a very real connection between corporal punishment and current and lifelong experience of mental ill health.'
These findings have been replicated by numerous previous studies in Australia and other countries. A United States study published in 2012 found that harsh physical punishment was associated with increased odds of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse/dependence, and several personality disorders after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and family history of dysfunction.
A United Nations World Health Organisation fact sheet released on November 23. 2021, stated, 'Corporal punishment triggers harmful psychological and physiological responses. Children not only experience pain, sadness, fear, anger, shame and guilt, but feeling threatened also leads to physiological stress and the activation of neural pathways that support dealing with danger. Children who have been physically punished tend to exhibit high hormonal reactivity to stress, overloaded biological systems, including the nervous, cardiovascular, and nutritional systems, and changes in brain structure and function.Despite its widespread acceptability, spanking is also linked to atypical brain function like that caused by more severe abuse, thereby undermining the frequently cited argument that less severe forms of physical punishment are not harmful. A large body of research shows links between corporal punishment and a wide range of negative outcomes, both immediate and long-term.'
Among the negative consequences presented in the World Health Organisation's 2019 overview of research data are 'mental ill-health, including behavioural and anxiety disorders, depression, hopelessness, low self-esteem, self-harm and suicide attempts, alcohol and drug dependency, hostility and emotional instability, which continue into adulthood.' The negative physiological consequences referred to in the World Health Organisation's paper include disruptions in brain development and resulting reduction of cognitive function. A 2017 review of recent research on physical punishment found that children who have been disciplined in this way show differences in brain structure and functioning, suggesting that smacking negatively impacts brain development.
It has also been found that the physical punishment of children can have a negative effect on their performance on IQ tests. University of New Hampshire professor Murray Straus has conducted research which suggests that children who are spanked have lower IQs. Straus found that children in the United States who were spanked had lower IQs four years later than those who were not spanked. Straus and Mallie Paschall, senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, studied nationally representative samples of 806 children ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9. Both groups were retested four years later. IQs of children ages 2 to 4 who were not spanked were 5 points higher four years later than the IQs of those who were spanked. The IQs of children ages 5 to 9 years old who were not spanked were 2.8 points higher four years later than the IQs of children the same age who were spanked. Professor Straus stated, 'How often parents spanked made a difference. The more spanking, the slower the development of the child's mental ability. But even small amounts of spanking made a difference.' 2. Physically punishing children encourages aggression and contributes to domestic violence
Opponents of physically punishing children argue that this promotes aggression in the short term and may contribute to cross generational problems of violence, especially against women.
Research has established that children who are physically punished tend to inflict aggression on other family members. Professor Silke Meyer, a co-author of the ANROWS study 'Adolescent family violence in Australia: A national study of prevalence, history of childhood victimisation and impacts', said young people who had been smacked as children told researchers they 'tend to hit family members, especially siblings and mothers, as a way of conflict resolution'. Meyer has further explained, 'We had a few young people comment specifically on it [stating]: "I was smacked as a child, that taught me this kind of behaviour was OK". It's a lot around role-modelling,' said Meyer, the Leneen Forde Chair of Child and Family Research, Griffith University.
The link between corporal punishment of children in the home and increased aggression among children has been noted in many countries. On January 18, 2014, a study conducted in Tanzania, suggested the link between the physical punishment of children and their subsequent violent or aggressive behaviour. The researchers interviewed 409 children between grades 2 and 7 at one private school in Tanzania, on the east coast of Africa. Participants averaged 10.5 years old. Ninety-five percent of the boys and girls said they had been physically punished at least once in their lifetime by parents or caregivers. The majority of children, 82 percent, had been beaten with sticks, belts or other objects and 66 percent had been punched, slapped or pinched. Within the group, 21 percent of the boys and girls showed aggression problems through affirmative answers to questions like, "Have you ever taken things from others against their will?" Nine percent of children had higher-than-normal levels of hyperactivity. About 11 percent showed less empathetic behaviour than peers who had not experienced physical punishment. The lead researcher stated, 'Children learn aggressive behavior and become more aggressive toward other children.'
Similar outcomes have been observed in countries where the corporal punishment administered to children is less severe. On November 5, 2018, the American Academy of Pediatrics observed, 'A large national cohort study conducted in the 20 largest U.S. cities noted that children who were spanked more than twice a month were more aggressive at subsequent surveys. Thus, each negative interaction reinforced previous negative interactions as part of a complex negative spiral. Children who experience repeated use of corporal punishment tend to develop more aggressive behaviors, increased aggression in school, and an increased risk of mental health disorders and cognitive problems.'
Relatedly, it has been shown that children who are physically punished in the home are more likely to victimise their peers. It has been suggested that physical punishment normalises the use of violence by children who receive this treatment. It has particularly been noted that boys who have been physically punished as children show a tendency to use violence against family members when, as adults, they become intimate partners and fathers. Professor Silke Meyer has stated, 'Very often men in behaviour-change programs for intimate partner violence will say, "My dad smacked us, and I turned out to be OK, aside from the use of abusive behaviour". Otherwise, they think, "It didn't hurt me, so it doesn't hurt my children".'
Other research has suggested a similar link between adult domestic violence and being the recipient of corporal punishment as a child. On May 3, 2021, The Conversation published an article by Angelika Poulsen, of the Department of Sociology, Australian National University, in which she explains the link between corporal punishment and domestic violence. Poulsen states, 'Smacking has a similar effect on a child's brain to that of abuse, in that the stress and fear it provokes can cause changes to some neurotransmissions. It is more likely to lead to alcohol misuse, depression, and anti-social and aggressive behaviours, which may in turn be antecedents to partner violence.' Poulsen further notes, 'Research spanning 32 countries...[has] found that people who had been smacked as children were more likely to approve of intra-marital violence. So normalising violence within a family to a child increases the likelihood of their involvement in partner violence in adulthood, as victims as well as perpetrators.' 3. Children's behaviour can be modified without physical punishment
There are many effective strategies for managing children's behaviour which do not involve violence.
Raisingchildren.net.au is an Australian government-funded parenting website which offers free, expert advice in all aspects of childrearing. The site gives advice on the management of children from infancy to toddlerhood, pre-school, and primary school years, through to teenage years and beyond.
The section of the Raising Children website dealing with behaviour management of school-age children includes parents recognising their own feelings, positive modelling, building routines, adjusting problematic environments, warning of anticipated changes, offering controlled choices, posing appropriate consequences for negative behaviour, (including time-out and loss of privileges), encouragement of positive behaviour and recognition of achievement.
The British National Health Service (NHS) offers similar support for parents. It has a number of general principles to assist parents when dealing with child behaviour problems. Among these are to consider the situation carefully and behave in a manner which feels appropriate for the wellbeing of all members of the family. It encourages parents to be persistent, consistent, and not to over-react. It recommends that parents talk with their children, do not use violence and reward positive behaviours.
There are online telephone services available to offer help to parents struggling to manage their children's behaviour. One of these is familylives. The Child Mind Institute is a United States parent advisory group formed to assist parents whose children struggle with mental health or learning challenges. It recognises that not all families or children will be able to access professional mental health services. Among other things, it offers an online 'Symptom Checker', a 'Resource Finder' and gives online access to appropriate experts.
The generally recommended non-violent childrearing practices require parental anger management. There is help available to assist parents achieve this. In Australia, the Raising Children website assists with recognising and managing anger. It recommends strategies for self-awareness, parents removing themselves from the situation where possible and restorative actions when a situation has got out of hand.
There is a general acknowledgement that though childrearing can be difficult, strategies involving physical violence are unsuccessful. The American Psychological Association (APA) argues that physical discipline is both harmful and ineffective. On the question of ineffectiveness, it states, 'Strong and sophisticated longitudinal research...finds physical discipline does not improve behavior and can lead to emotional, behavioral and academic problems over time, even after race, gender and family socioeconomic status have been statistically controlled. Elizabeth Gershoff, PhD, an expert on the effects of corporal punishment on children, states, 'Hitting children does not teach them right from wrong...Spanking gets their attention, but they have not internalized why they should do the right thing in the future. They may behave when the adult is there but do whatever they want at other times.'
The physical punishment of children has also been condemned as ineffective in Australia. The Australian Institute of Family Studies states, 'Good evidence suggests that physical punishment does not reduce defiant or aggressive behaviour, nor does it promote long-term positive behaviour in children. A systematic review of 53 studies on the use of physical punishment in schools found that it had negative effects on the academic performance of children and resulted in behavioural issues (e.g., violent behaviour and aggressive conduct).'
4. Laws against physically punishing children will not criminalise parents
Those who support making it illegal to physically punish children claim that this can be done without criminalising parents.
There are numerous jurisdictions where it has been made illegal to physically punish children, but no criminal penalties apply to parents who break the law. France is an example of a country where the law has been changed without legal penalties being put in place. The primary purpose of making corporal punishment illegal within French homes is educative. The intention is to make parents aware that the physical punishment of children is not a practice that is accepted by French society or the French legal system. The law regarding the punishment of children is read out to couples when they exchange their marital vows. The newly-weds are told that 'parental authority is exercised without physical or psychological violence'.
Even in jurisdictions where there is some penalty provided for parents who physically punish, this is not generally intended to be put into effect. In 2006, the European Commissioner for Human Rights wrote, 'The purpose of criminalizing all corporal punishment is not, of course, to prosecute and punish more parents...It gives a clear message that hitting children is wrong - at least as wrong as hitting anyone else. Thus, it provides a consistent basis for child protection and for public education promoting positive forms of discipline. As attitudes change, so the need for prosecution and for formal interventions into families to protect children will diminish.'
Similar points have been made about the purpose and effect of any change in the law regarding the punishment of Australian children. University of Melbourne child clinical psychologist Professor Sophie Havighurst has noted that although 63 nations have now made it illegal for parents to physical punish their children, there has been no increase in prosecutions in these countries. Professor Havighurst argues that changing the law was intended to bring about a cultural change and a change of attitude among parents and that this would be the same in Australia. The professor has stated, 'We don't want the government and police having more involvement in our family lives, but we do know that law change can guide us to use other ways of parenting and that's really important.'
Those countries where the law has been changed to make the physical punishment of children illegal have noted a progressively greater rejection of corporal punishment among their populations. The European Human Rights Commissioner stated in 2006, 'Whereas in 1965 a majority of Swedes were supportive of corporal punishment, a recent survey found only six per cent of under-35-year-olds supporting the use of even the mildest forms. Practice has also changed; of those whose childhood occurred shortly after the ban, only three per cent report harsh slaps from their parents, and only one per cent report being hit with an implement...
Increased sensitivity to violence against children in Sweden has led to an increase in
reporting of assaults, but there has been a declining trend in prosecutions of parents, and a
substantial reduction in compulsory social work interventions and in numbers of children
taken into care. Public attitudes towards hitting children have changed, which has facilitated
early supportive intervention in individual cases.'
Similar changes in public attitude have occurred in other countries following the outlawing of corporal punishment within the home. In an article published in The Conversation on July 26, 2013, Susan Moloney, President of the Paediatrics & Child Health Division, The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, wrote, 'A survey conducted in 2012 found 63 percent of New Zealand parents had never, or only rarely, smacked their child since the law there changed in 2007. Countries that have banned the physical punishment of children have also seen other benefits including increased early identification of children at risk of abuse, and very low rates of mortality associated with child abuse.'
5. Physical punishment against children undermines their legal protections and human rights.
Those who oppose the use of physical punishment with children argue that children are currently one of the few groups in Australian society against whom force can be used without their consent. National Children's Commissioner, Anne Hollonds, has stated, 'We know now that you can't hit your boss, your wife or even hit your dog, but at home you can use physical punishment on your own kids.'
Laws across Australia offer most citizens protection against assault. There are variations in the definitions of assault from one state to another; however, they have key features in common. One summary definition of what is regarded as assault in Australia states, 'Assault is recognised under Australian law as an offence against the individual, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. Also, Australian law prescribes various charges for the act of assault.
The act of assault is always intentional and entails reasonable apprehension by the victim of immediate harm irrespective of whether the actual harm has occurred... the offence of assault may take place, for instance, when the perpetrator aims at touching, striking, moving or applying force without the victim's consent.'
Critics maintain that physically punishing children should not be exempted from nation-wide Australian laws against assault. Currently, however, corporal punishment in the home is lawful in all Australian states under several different justifications including parents' right to administer 'reasonable chastisement'. Only New South Wales has attempted to set clear limits on the degree of force that can be applied. Under section 61AA of the New South Wales Crimes Act, as amended in 2001, physical punishment by a parent or caregiver is considered unreasonable if the force is applied to a child's head or neck, or the force is applied to any part of the body in such a way as to cause, or threaten to cause, harm to the child which lasts more than a short period. In such cases the defence of 'lawful correction' does not apply and parents or other caregivers can be charged with a crime.
In the absence of clear definitions of 'reasonable chastisement' such punishment may slide into abuse. Critics have argued that it can be easy for an angry, physically punitive parent, to become a frankly abusive one.
Many opponents of the corporal punishment of children point to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in support of their position. In September 2001, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child called upon all States to 'enact or repeal...their legislation in order to prohibit all forms of violence, however light, within the family and in schools, including as a form of discipline, as required by the provisions of the Convention ...'
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child stresses the obligation to protect children from all forms of violence including cruel or degrading punishment, which conflict with the child's human dignity and right to physical integrity.
In May 2006 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child supplied a clear definition of the punishments that should be outlawed. It stated, 'The Committee defines ""Corporal" or "physical" punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting ("smacking", "slapping", "spanking") children, with the hand or with an implement - a whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, biting, pulling hair or boxing ears, forcing children to stay in uncomfortable positions, burning, scalding or forced ingestion (for example, washing children's mouths out with soap or forcing them to swallow hot spices).
In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment is invariably degrading.'