Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Smacking, remove parents’ right to
Section E. Social, moral and religious

A useful tool in child-rearing or an outdated act of barbarism? Smacking continues to be controversial. It is banned outright in some countries such as New Zealand and much of Europe. Others restrict it to certain ages (in Canada, it is illegal to smack a child under the age of 3 or over the age of 11). Many countries, including the UK, define and legalise ’reasonable chastisement’, but place limits such as forbidding smacking to the head or with an object. In the UK, if there is a bruise or cut after smacking, the perpetrator can be imprisoned for up to five years.

Pros

[1] The use of force is barbaric and it is made more, not less, acceptable if it is used against a defenceless child. Even if no long-lasting physical damage is inflicted, there are emotional side-effects to being hit that will remain.

[2] There are many other methods that should instead be used to teach good behaviour: verbal correction, ’grounding’, withholding of pocket money and so on. It is not morally justified to cause pain to others, even in a parent-child relationship.

[3] Parental use of force teaches children that violence can be acceptable. Too many criminals, bullies and children with other behavioural disorders have been beaten as part of their upbringing for the link not to be accepted. Parents are not necessarily trustworthy and many abuse the right of chastisement. Others may simply misjudge the level of force they use in the heat of the moment and cause serious injury to their child.

[4] By introducing fear and intimidation into the parent-child relationship, you undermine trust and therefore other forms of positive discipline such as praise and encouragement. If a child has high self-esteem and self-confidence, they are more likely willingly to follow their parents’ rules and meet their expectations.

Cons

[1] ’Spare the rod and spoil the child.’ A short, sharp expression of force, such as a smack or a spanking - which inflicts no serious or lasting damage - is an extremely effective method of discipline. It is espoused by many childcare experts.

[2] There are sometimes no effective alternatives, especially in children’s formative years, before they have developed faculties of reason and fair play to which parents can (try to) appeal. Children need to be taught the difference between right and wrong. A smack can quickly communicate that boundaries have been crossed and parental authority can be established.

[3] It is possible for the law to distinguish between ’reasonable chastisement’ and child abuse and the latter must be punished. However, the existence of bad parents does not mean that the majority of good parents should be denied the right to raise their children as they see fit. The number of parents who have used smacking to produce well-raised children testifies to the usefulness of the punishment.

[4] Spanking and smacking should be seen as part of a wider strategy of child-rearing. They should be used only selectively, for acts of wilful disobedience and misbehaviour, and only after milder forms of discipline (removal of privileges, addition of chores) have failed. Encouragement and praise should be given for good behaviour.

Possible motions

This House would ban smacking.

This House would allow parents to physically punish their children.

Related topics

Capital punishment

Parents, responsibility for the criminal acts of their children