Should smacking be made illegal?

Question

Apologies if this has already been asked, I haven't spotted it.

David W - you have made the classic YA mistake of assuming you know my standpoint based solely on my question. I am simply asking a question based on an issue that is currently making the news.

Answer 1

Absolutely not. Even a good parent sometimes needs an ultimate deterrent.

I have two children and I have only ever once smacked one of them, but I would be outraged if some nanny-state-do-gooder made my children aware that it was illegal for me to smack them.

Imagine the psychological impact on a child of knowing that their parents "can't touch them".

On the other hand, I would be the first to cast a stone at someone who "looses it" and beats up their family.

Answer 2

There seems to be no justification whatsoever for a smacking ban. Violent assaults etc. of course. Nobody wants to go too far.
However, things must be regulated to some extent by the age of the child. Many years ago (1950s) my school had a simple policy - up to 9 years of age, a thin wooden ruler could be used on the palm of the hand and a maximum of 2 smacks (the ruler often broke on the first anyway - much to the amusement of all). After 9, the headmaster alone could use a proper bamboo cane for up to 6 strokes (6 of the best) on the buttocks, this to be done in private, apart from a senior teacher as a witness). Naturally, if your parents found out, you got the same again at home.
Children rarely, if ever, repeated the offence. It was sometimes even inflicted for failure to do homework or persistently low marks in pre-prepared tests. Result, we worked hard, didn't talk in class, behaved respectably in front of teachers.
Compare this with the current "nest of vipers". Teachers walk in fear of physical assault, parents are abused or ignored, juvenile crime is rampant, the prisons are full to overflowing.
Much of this would be stopped dead in its tracks if children learned from an early age that NO means NO and further faults may hurt.
So, parents and teachers (or anybody acting "in loco parentis") should have the right to smack or (with older children) cane. Proper monitoring should be maintained - ie. punishment book, a witness, possibly, in the case of a school issue, a parent in attendance.
Certainly, none of the children I went to school with were ever mentally scarred by this approach (nor did I ever hear of a case where they were, apart from a few abuse cases - a different issue entirely). We understood that, at the end of the day, the fault was ours. Behave and you don't get hurt and, you might even get rewarded.
For the public, a safer and more polite country.
Children must learn from an early age to respect their elders and betters.
I suppose I should add that there are some children who are "naturally" good and some who are "born villains". These are the extremes and the villians will probably end up on gaol anyway. Not much will change these people. I'm thinking of the largest group - the ones in the middle. For them, physical punishment is the quickest and most effective deterrent.
Naturally, smacking/caning must be kept as both a permanent threat AND a last resort. If used too often, it becomes pointless. Part of its effect is possibly the sheer shock of knowing that you've finally gone too far and retribution is at hand. The next few minutes ARE going to be unpleasant, and it's your own fault.

Answer 3

The odd smack now and again will not harm any child if that what you are referring too, however the flip-side of the coin this could lead to beatings.

If the need to smack or better a light tap a child is called for, NEVER do it in anger, most modern teaching state "to use a firm voice and reason with the child" But in the long run parents find their own way.

I use the firm voice with reasoning, but I must admit on a 3 three year mini hurricane it gose over the head sometimes.

Answer 4

Smacking has never done any harm to anyone. Beating is a whole different issue. Sometimes dispite all the words in the world, one can't reason with the kid and smacking has to take place. It shows authority too, something this modern society has lost and really needs to regain. Look at the kids of today, no discipline, they are dictating their own parents their wishes. Without discipline the next generation of kids will be totally disorderly and the society will sink!!!

Answer 5

Absolutely NOT!

Some, and I mean a tiny percentage of children need to by physically punished. I was one of them. If I did wrong, and was punished in any way that was not physical, I believed that I had 'got away with it'

My Brother on the other hand was completely different, smacking made him worse, more beligerant and stubborn.

I am glad to say my parents could tell the difference, they could talk to and reason with my brother, he would then behave, with me, they threatened a smack, and I would behave, because I knew they would carry it out.

Without the cane at school (which I never had, because it was there) and the threat of a smack at home, I would undoubtedly be in jail today. I was saved from a life of crime, before I was mature enough to realise I had potential for a better life.

There are violent youths today who are screwed up because they where smacked, when they shouldn't have been, and likewise there are violent youths who are screwed up because they where not smacked when they should have been.

All children are different, have different needs and removing the deterent of smacking, removes a barrier from bad behaviour for some children.

Answer 6

No

Moderate smacking is an effective form of operant conditioning that can be used in the early stages of a child's development to modify their behaviour at an age when their capacity for reasoning and comprehension is not great.

Young children learn from painful experiences. When they cannot walk, run or balance properly they frequently trip, fall and hurt themselves. This teaches them to do it right, and we accept this as a normal healthy part of their development. We don't bring in laws saying that all surfaces must be covered in six inches of padding so that they never hurt themselves.

But a child who gets it into their head that they really, really want some of those sweets that Mummy or Daddy won't let them have that they keep in that special cupboard with a big red cross on it, and who is in the habit of dragging a chair over to climb up and reach the cupboard, needs to be conditioned to regard that cupboard as a place they don't want to go. You can't let let them learn from their mistakes in this case because their mistake will cost them their life.

There are many ways in which they can be conditioned, and as a last resort smacking has to be one of them. Naughty step? What if the child refuses to stay put on the naughty step? What if they struggle when you try to force them to stay there? Do you shut them in a room by themselves? That's crueler than smacking. Why does anyone imagine that isolation treatment messes their heads up less than smacking?

Let's get real here. All punishment causes pain, whatever the nature of the punishment - otherwise it isn't punishment. It's cruel to punish anyone for anything but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

Mental punishment is not kinder than physical punishment. And a smack given after fair warning has been given and all else has failed, in order to condition your child to behave in a way that does not endanger themselves, is not violence.

Answer 7

I don't know. It wouldn't stop people smacking their children even if it was. A lot of people who smack their children do so because a) they have lost it, or b) they deliberately use corporal punishment, cold bloodedly, after the event. Both of these are "wrong". However, a 'warning smack', ie. if a child goes to grab something hot etc. , could be deemed appropriate. I suppose it all depends on each situation. The idea of making it illegal seems vaguely ridiculous, but then I suppose zero tolerance means just that.

Answer 8

I think the idea is that it will make abuse a lot easier to spot as they can catagorically state that if you have smacked your child/ hit/ hurt in any way, then you have broken the law and they can then make follow up checks as required. I don't think it means that the average parent who smacked her/ his toddlers hand as she was about to put it in the socket will be charged, there should still be room for intelligent thought during the legal process and I would hope this is used!! From the point of view of making children's homes where they might be being abused more accessible to appropriate services than I hope this is a positive move. But I don't think that it is necessarily wrong to smack a child- it depends very much on the situation and the child's reasoning capacity.

Answer 9

No it shouldn't - beating should be. My daughter knows when she has done wrong as i will give her a quick slap. This happens once every 2 months or so. If you discipline your child verbally as in showing the right from wrong then there should be no need for excessive smacking. I don't agree with smacking around the face either, only on the hand or the butt if really bad.

Answer 10

Smack is the street name for heroin, a class A narcotic which is already extremely illegal.

If a user or "windowlicker" is found in possession of "Smack" or he/she/it is "smacking" then he/she/it can expect a lengthly spell at a state prison such as Alton Towers or Madame Tussauds. However, selling the drug can incur a much harsher sentence in the form of listening to Radio 2 or spending 18 hours a day with Vannessa Feltz.

Dont get caught smacking one off.