Listen to thisWhat do you mean by 'physical punishment'?
We mean any action which is meant to cause pain to a child,
such as hitting, slapping, smacking, with a hand or with a slipper,
strap, stick or other implement. We also include violent shaking and any
kind of forcible imprisonment, such as being locked in a room or
cupboard or tied in a cot.
What's so wrong with hitting children?
Better to ask 'what's right about it?' Everybody agrees it is morally
wrong to settle arguments between adult people with blows. But children
are people too. Why should they of all people lack equal protection from
all forms of violence, particularly when they are among the most
vulnerable physically?
Physical punishments are not only morally wrong, they don't work either. A whack on the bottom may stop children for that moment. But it won't stop them doing the same thing later on because being hit does not teach them anything useful. It doesn't teach them how you want them to behave, and it doesn't teach them to try to please you. Research evidence shows that children who have been slapped or hit are usually so overwhelmed with anger and hurt feelings that they cannot remember what they were punished for.
But surely you need to use physical force to
keep children safe?
There is all the difference in the world between using your strength to
snatch a child away from a hot stove or prevent them running into a busy
road, and intentionally inflicting pain as punishment.
Surely a tap on the legs doesn't count?
Yes it does. Lots of parents 'tap' babies, but many, many more smack
four-year-olds. That's because hitting doesn't work except to relieve
parents' feelings. If you let yourself smack your toddler for fiddling
with the TV, what can you do when the toddler fiddles again except smack
again – harder? And what can you do with the five-year-old who refuses
to stay in his room to “cool off" – except lock the door ...?
But is the ordinary kind of smacking that
goes on in loving homes worth all the fuss?
Yes it is – because violence really does breed violence, and violence is
a major problem in today's society. We are not saying that hitting at
home is the only cause of that violence, but we are saying that ending
hitting at home would help to reduce it. Children model a lot of their
behaviour on their parents. Parents who use physical punishment are
directly teaching their children that physical force is an acceptable
way to get what you want. If we want fewer violent adults we have to
bring them up believing that physical force is not acceptable.
But aren't ordinary physical punishment and
child abuse two quite different things?
When serious cases of child abuse are investigated, they are frequently
shown to have started with occasional smacks given in the name of
discipline which gradually escalated into tragedies. Current acceptance
of physical punishment causes a dangerous confusion. Most of those
responsible for seriously injuring children are found to have been
physically punished in their childhood.
And even light blows can accidentally cause serious injury to small children, for example, a 'clip on the ear' can burst an eardrum and permanently damage hearing, and smacks catching a child off balance have led to falls and head injuries.
But children need discipline; what should
replace physical punishment?
EPOCH certainly doesn't argue against discipline, or against consistent
limits for children. The best responses to bad behaviour are always
directly linked to parents' disapproval, irritation or anger, the
removal of the toy or playmate the child is hurting, or the ending of
the game or meal which is being ruined for everyone else. But rewards
work better than punishments for children, just as they do for adults.
There are already many parents who don't hit their children in any
circumstances, but certainly believe in discipline and limits. You don't
spoil a child by not hitting them.
How can you expect parents under stress,
suffering from family poverty, unemployment and lack of proper child
care support not to hit their children?
EPOCH agrees that our society needs to do much more for those who bear
the burden of child-rearing and it will support those campaigning for
reforms. But there are no clear links between such social factors and
the frequency or severity of hitting children. The fact is that while
there continues to be confusion over what is acceptable, hitting
children is likely of itself to increase stress and violence within any
family. In any case, why should children and only children wait for
equal protection from violence until we've sorted out these other major
social ills?
If you stop parents hitting their children,
they'll resort to even worse forms of punishment – and what about
emotional abuse anyway?
Obviously other kinds of punishment can be harmful too. We concentrate
on physical punishment because its harmful effects have been clearly
demonstrated, because it is very frequently used, it is clearly defined,
and because children are the only people in our society who are not
protected from it. Changing attitudes to physical punishment, and hence
to children, will discourage other harmful forms of punishment.
Won't every parent sometimes lose his or her
temper and hit their child?
While hitting children remains acceptable, the answer is probably 'yes'.
But do all adults sometimes lose their temper and hit their partner? No,
because hitting other adults (or even pets) is beyond the pale. If
hitting children was equally unacceptable, most parents would never do
it and the few who sometimes did would regret it and try not to. That is
all it would take to shift social attitudes towards a new respect for
children as people.
