THW BAN SMACKING

MOTION #94: THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN SMACKING

In most common law countries any common assault (that is deliberate or reckless physical contact without consent) is illegal. There are however a series of exceptions to that proposition where the public interest is deemed to justify allowing such assaults. For example, we allow people to cause others physical harm in the name of self defence or legal war and we allow the police to cause criminals a degree of physical harm. In all these cases physical harm is allowed either because there is no alternative or because of the urgency of the situation. They may also be justified by claims that these actions are in the name of the greater good.

Another oft used example is that of 'lawful chastisement.' In most cases it is legitimate to strike children for that purpose where it would not be acceptable to strike an adult. That is, the use of physical punishment to chastise one's spouse or employee has long been deemed illegal harassment in almost all nations, particularly democracies. When milder physical punished is used to chastise children it is usually referred to as smacking or spanking. The law varies from country to country as to what is an acceptable level of force but very few countries (Germany and Sweden are notable exception) have an outright ban on parents using such force. "Currently in England and Wales, section 58 of the Children Act 2004 enables parents to justify common assault of their children as "reasonable punishment", but prevents the defence being used in relation to more serious assault charges". In order for a punishment to be 'reasonable' it must not cause serious mental or physical damage, it must be administered only by a parent and it must be in the name of punishment – rather than say sexual pleasure or as an emotional outlet.

The debate turns not only on the moral principle behind the legitimacy of smacking itself but also on the effects of allowing smacking on the state’s ability to police child abuse.

Pros	Cons
Children should receive the same legal protection from violence as adults. Children should receive the same legal protection from violence as adults. It is wrong that parents can deliberately inflict pain to the extent that if inflicted on an adult it would justify prosecution. In a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, children are the most vulnerable members of society, yet the only group which can be legally assaulted. The Council of Europe – which monitors compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights – ruled in 1998 that smacking violated children’s rights against cruel and degrading treatment1 . Furthermore, as Time reports, a hundred years ago ‘it was considered a novel idea for the law to say you couldn’t hit your wife. Today…children are the only class that is unprotected’2. This is not right, ‘children…need more protection and not less’.It is time to right this wrong.	We allow children to be treated in a different manner from adults because they need to be educated and are not yet old enough to learn correct behaviour through rational conversation or by an understanding of social norms in the way that adults are able to. We allow adults to restrict their children's movement, finances, eating and even who they socialise with. This is all undeniably acceptable behaviour but it would not be acceptable in the case of adults. The burden on the arguer is to prove that there is some kind of harm to treating children differently to adults. It is also true that physical punishment is sometimes acceptable within the adult community. Society is unlikely to heavily condemn a woman who slaps a man after he has made an excessively degrading comment or who makes her uncomfortable with inappropriate sexual advances. Furthermore, corporal punishment takes place in the context of a loving family environment where no harm is meant and there is mutual care.
Parents caught smacking their children would be punished by fines or, if repeated, jail. The existing mechanisms to catch abusive parents are entrenched in most societies; child abuse claims are often the result of third-party observers, often teachers, calling the police or child services. Such a system would be expected to play a greater role in societies with a ban on smacking – initial penalties would be financial only, to ensure that parents are taken away from their children only if they have proven themselves repeat offenders. This charge would only be if the child is under 12 years of age. Parents who feel that smacking is an appropriate tool of discipline ‘have to give up the privilege to physically discipline their children for the sake of protecting children that aren’t being hit once in a blue moon or in a light way, but are really being hit many times a day’.	The law is ripe for exploitation and is no improvement on the current law in most states that parents can use any form of discipline provided it is not unjustifiable1. How would the state deal with a case where one parent accused another of smacking but without evidence? Smacks do not always leave bruises and children often receive bruises from entirely different activities. Furthermore, even if we accept that smacking is harmful in all cases, who is to say that a ban would prove effective and reduce the practice? Most accusations will be thrown out due to a lack of evidence, providing no deterrent to parents adopting the practice.
Smacking will lead to abuse. Only an outright ban on smacking will enhance child protection. The number of children reporting being beaten to the point of bruising in Germany has declined from 3 in 10 to 3 in 100 since 1992 after a ban was introduced in Germany. A culture that tolerates smacking makes it easier to conceal graver abuse. Frequently, incidents of abuse reported by children are not investigated, or the cases abandoned as the abuse is written off as a case of "legitimate punishment". A total ban enables child protection workers to give the parents of children at risk of abuse a clear message that no level of corporal punishment is acceptable. A parent who still continues to smack their child would no longer be able to hide behind the defence of "reasonable chastisement". In European countries with a longstanding smacking ban, there has been an increase in the early detection of children at risk, and a decrease in the proportion of parents who are subsequently prosecuted.	There is nothing to say that the occasionally smacking one's child makes one more comfortable with hurting the child. In fact, it is likely that parents do not enjoy smacking their child and would prefer not to have to but see it as a necessary measure at times. Many parents smack their children and do not abuse them. There are cases of abuse but there is no conclusive evidence to show that there is a correlation between corporal punishment and abuse. Furthermore, even though there are some parents and teachers who are physically abusive this does not necessarily mean that we should ban corporal punishment outright in the same way that we do not ban driving simply because some people speed and drive recklessly or drunk.
Smacking is psychologically damaging. Smacking, however occasional, is harmful to children. As well as causing physical pain there are lasting psychological effects. It is widely recognised that smacking undermines children's confidence, weakens their emotional relationships and encourages the use of violence to resolve disputes with siblings and classmates. The experience of childhood smacking has even been linked with an increased risk of alcoholism, depression, masochistic fantasy and suicidal ideation in adult life. Professor Murray Straus tested the IQs of children, spanked and not spanked, and found that the IQs of kids who were not spanked stayed the same over a four year period whilst the spanked toddlers dropped up to 5 points.	There is only evidence to support this claim in cases of excessive corporal punishment which is not the type of punishment to which this debate refers. It seems that this argument is very weak in reference to the occasional smack. Furthermore, there is great harm done to children when parents provide too little discipline. A lack of boundaries can leave children feeling neglected and allow them to get themselves into harmful situations and struggle to implement discipline in their adult lives.
The child has the right to be protected from all forms of violence. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires the countries to protect children from "all forms of physical and mental violence". The Committee on the Rights of the Child, its international monitoring body for the Convention, emphasises that even physical punishment within the family is not compatible with full implementation, and has formally recommended prohibition to the UK and other countries. In 1999 the European Court of Human Rights found that the beating by a father of his stepson constituted "inhuman or degrading punishment". The law in Britain and other countries that tolerate smacking should be brought into line with European law to ensure the respect of basic human rights.	All systems of human rights law are qualified. The question of whether the right concerned is engaged at all relies on proving that the act is illegitimate. Further, even if the right is engaged, if it is justified for one of the many reasons written into the structure of the rights themselves it will amount to a legitimate qualification of the right and therefore will not fall foul of the relevant legislation. Finally, European Human Rights law allows a margin of discretion for national laws to take into account cultural differences and the judgment of legislators.
Permitting smacking sends message to society that violence is acceptable. Smacking is harmful to society as normative forms of violence spill over into criminal forms. As corporal punishment is a significant factor in the development of violent behaviour in childhood and later life, an outright ban would help measures to reduce violence and crime. Banning smacking would also help to promote the concept of zero tolerance of violence between all family members and thus reduce all forms of domestic violence, as well as reducing bullying between children. As Sir Al Aynsley-Green, Children's Commissioner in England, has noted, 'we continue to send out confusing messages to parents about the acceptable use of violence across society. A strong, consistent message needs to be applied, starting with a total ban of smacking.	The evidence for this is non-existent. There are clear correlations in a society between poverty and violence, availability of weapons and violence, widespread drug use and violence, absence of parents and violence. The assertion of a link between smacking and social violence is highly dubious given the cross-national variation between levels of violence and crime between countries with the same policies on smacking, as well as the strength of correlation with other factors. This is no more than an assertion of hippy faith.
Smacking is harmful to children, irrespective of the conditions in which it is used. A bad home may exacerbate the psychological effects of smacking, but that does not render the action of smacking in a 'good' home to be any less damaging. That the other factors in a good home dull some of the effects of smacking should not be used as an excuse for a damaging practise. If it is wrong for one adult to hit another adult, why should it be OK for an adult to hit a child? And why should we distinguish between the long-term effects of the action when it is the action itself that is wrong, regardless of the consequences? Smacking does not give clarity to rules, it merely tells children not to do something otherwise they will get hurt. That is no substitute for explaining to one's children why a given action is inappropriate.	Smacking is not harmful to children when used appropriately. Smacking is only harmful to children when it is outside the context of a stable, loving and communicative home. But in such "bad homes" a laissez faire attitude also leads to long term psychological problems from feelings of being ignored, the lack of social skills from parental interaction and a lack of firm boundaries for acceptable behaviour. Bad parenting is the problem, not smacking. Within the context of a caring and loving home, smacking of children can allow boundaries to be set without ongoing battles between parents and children that are harmful to their relationship. According to a 2004 American survey, nearly half of parent-age adults think it is an appropriate model of discipline for children 12 and younger. Smacking is a short, sharp shock and it gives clarity to the rules, which is actually a source of great security for children.
The difficulty of enforcing a ban is no reason to turn a blind eye to a harmful practise. Furthermore, bans work as more than simply punitive measures, they act as deterrents that prevent the offence being carried out in the first place. Yes, a parent may attempt to smack their children in their own homes, but teachers, parents and other children will not remain ignorant if children appear damaged or hurt. As for good parents going to jail, a good parent should not use smacking, nor they should commit an offense that they know to be illegal. Nevertheless, under the proposed model, parents caught smacking are only sent to jail if it is their third offence – a good parent not wanting to wind up in jail would not need three warnings.	A ban would be impossible to enforce. Smacking is not often a public punishment, it is often carried out in the family home and away from prying eyes. Therefore, having the necessary evidence to both catch and convict those who continue with the practise would be exceptionally difficult – not least as the law would encourage those parents to be subtle with their use of the tactic. Children cannot be expected to come forward, and if they did, it would be simply for a defendant to question their testimony. Furthermore, the obvious signs of smacking are not readily visible on the body as they are typically directed at areas covered by clothing. As Sally Lieber notes, ‘by law you would have a hard time differentiating between a responsible parent who thinks about parenting and hits and one that does not’. The solution cannot be permitted to be a ban that risks sending good parents to jail.
The model proposed would only send parents to prison if they were repeat offenders. We limit parents' liberty when it comes to practises that are unacceptably harmful to children. Psychological damage and degradation are unacceptable harms. It may be that many parents know their children well but there are many examples of cases where parents either do not have their child's best interests at heart or simply make poor decisions as to how those interests can best be addressed. The government interferes in the domestic realm in many cases e.g. making it illegal to drive without wearing a seatbelt and for a husband to physically discipline his wife. It is the duty of society as a whole to protect its most vulnerable members from harm. If an adult hits another adult it is considered assault, a crime, and thus falls under the remit of the law.	A ban would send well-intentioned parents into justice system, breaking up families. A ban on smacking will do nothing to tackle cases of real abuse, but will bring thousands of well-intentioned parents into the justice system. In the United States, between 1963 and 2003, reports of suspected child abuse grew from 160,000 to over 2.9 million cases reported annually; 97 per cent of cases are unable to be substantiated1. All of these parents, and their families, are nevertheless forced to endure the intrusive invasions by investigators, resulting in serious and long-term harm to their emotional and social well-being. If incidents of smacking are treated as child protection matters then parents will be subject to investigations on a far wider scale. Our already overburdened social services department will have even less time and resources to devote to uncovering real cases of abuse.
Smacking is an ineffective way of disciplining a child. It provides children with no incentive to behave well. British children themselves were asked this very question and responded that other actions, like restriction the use of toys or TV, would be more effective disciplinary methods than smacking1. Furthermore, children who are too young to understand an explanation of why their behaviour is wrong are equally unlikely to be able to relate a smack to their supposed crime. In Germany, where the law on smacking was modified in 2000, smacking has declined and there has been a reported rise in disciplinary methods like television bans and reduced pocket money. A ban on smacking would provide a clear legal basis for the promotion of similar positive, non-violent forms of discipline, which reduce family stress and promote polite children.	Smacking is a necessary and effective disciplinary method. It is unnatural for a parent to hit his or her own child. The fact that the practice is so widespread and long lasting suggests that it is an effective disciplinary method. Academic views on whether smacking is effective or not go in and out of fashion but the anecdotal evidence from millions of responsible parents never changes. One mother asked about the practice is adamant 'smacking works…it’s instant, it’s quickly over and it’s unequivocal. And in my experience, they learn and learn fast’. There is certainly enough similar anecdotal evidence that smacking can be effective that we should leave parents the discretion to exercise their judgment in the best interests of their child.