|
Do parents have a right to smack children? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Last Updated: 2 November, 2004
In a Commons vote, a proposal to change the Children
Bill to include an outright ban was defeated by 424 votes to 75. However a Lords amendment which outlaws smacks that
leave marks or cause mental harm was allowed. Do you think parents should have the right to smack
their children? Will the bill reduce abuse? Are children's rights effectively protected by
the laws of the country? Send us your views using the form.
Debra of Southampton reckons "dog training ideas
have progressed further than parenting" - yes, but is a dog likely to grow from a
petulant and unruly "toddler" into the kind of thug that (bearing in mind the
time of year) throws fireworks through letterboxes and smashes windows as a "trick or
treat" prank on elderly and infirm people? I have had experience of both within the
family during the last week and I know which "species" I'd rather punish by a
good slapping! I am entirely in agreement with most who have
submitted their views below, especially one from Mr. Ron Milligan (Gosport, England). If
majority of British population does not want this ban, I am indeed amazed why some Labour
back-benchers are so keen on total ban. I am sure they have not thought of what a parent
should do to curb unruly and anti-social acts of teenagers who may grow with the knowledge
that a smack or even a suggestion of one, will make their parents criminal. Yes, I can see
a nanny state in support of future nanny state legislations. If a smack is not a reasoned response by a parent but
instead acted out in anger I believe I would class it as abuse.
Everyone agrees it's not right to hit the elderly,
even when they are slow and deaf. It is not right to hit the mentally disabled, even when
they refuse to do what they are asked, and cannot seem to understand simple instructions.
It is not right to hit someone who works for you, even though they are in your charge. So
how can it possibly be right to hit a child? I was beaten by my mother for every
infraction of the rules. It taught me one thing only...to get your own way, use violence. I wasn't smacked often, but my parents exercised
their right when necessary, and I wholeheartedly agree with preservation of that right. My
worst smacking was when I was very young, for running across the road in front of a car
and narrowly avoiding injury or death. A sound smacking meant I never did that again, and
so probably saved my life! I'm sure most people would agree that an open-handed slap on
the bottom or thigh is perfectly reasonable, but that a closed-fist attack, or an attack
on any other part of the body is most definitely wrong. The lack of discipline especially in homes but also
in schools is partly the reason for the current "yob culture" we have in
Britain. The kids know that there is not a lot that can be done to them. If smacking is
banned it is just going to get worse and no one will be able to stop the vandalism and
general crime because the kids will be out of control. I have never smacked any of my children and never
will. My children are not saints but they are respectful and polite because we treat each
other with respect in our house. Because of that they know how to respect others. Parents
who say there is no other way are lacking in imagination and it is the child who pays for
that.
Smacking is another name for hitting. The phrase
'mild smacking' disguises the inequality children face. Most adults would not accept that
people in authority over them should be allowed to "mildly smack" them. Children
deserve exactly the same legal protection from being hit that adults take for granted. Another law that cannot be enforced, like the ban of
fireworks and on the spot fines for Anti-Social Behaviour. Older children already say 'you
can't hit me mister, I will get the law on you', as they graffiti your property or steal
your belongings. I do not believe that a total ban will make any
difference to the children who are systematically abused by their parents. One has only to
see what has happened in schools since a total ban on corporate punishment was introduced
in terms of unacceptable behaviour. The right to allow mild smacking must be retained. Parents must retain the right to discipline their
children. There is a clear distinction between a controlled smack to punish a wrong doing
as opposed to blatant physical abuse. It's just common sense.
I was smacked as a child and see absolutely nothing
wrong with sensible, rational parents using smacking as a means of chastising a naughty
child. There are so many young hooligans out there now, perhaps if they'd been taught the
difference between right and wrong at an early age they'd never have developed that way.
Besides, banning smacking will only prevent rational parents from using this form of
punishment sensibly - the people who already abuse children aren't going to stop because a
new law has been passed - what they do is already illegal! I suspect the next step is to outlaw grounding a
child as illegal imprisonment or emotional torture. This is a gross abuse of government
power, where it does not belong! Smacking is pointless. At acceptable levels, it
doesn't accomplish anything, and at unacceptable levels, it's, well, unacceptable. I'm in
favour of a ban, since it may help prevent "some" unacceptable abuse of this
'right'. I was smacked mildly as a child. I remember being
about 7 years old and realising a smack on the bottom didn't hurt anymore, my brother and
I ended up laughing about it which caused my mum to laugh and she never smacked us again
after that. Some children don't know the rights and wrongs of their actions so I see no
wrong in a quick smack for discipline. To ban smacking outright will not going to stop
child abuse, it will just mean more child abuse cases reported as the media will add their
spin on it.
Look what has happened since smacking was banned in
schools, no respect, no control, children knowing the have the upper hand. If parents
cannot smack their children, children they will soon pick up that they can threaten to
call the police if they do get a smack. There will be even more disruptive children
around. It will not stop child abuse because they do not abide by the laws already in
place now. Normal families know the difference and don't need a law. How do the government plan to police this? There is a
chronic shortage of social workers and I worry this may divert them from children being
molested or seriously hurt. Is everyone that contributes to this page a thug? If
you were disagreeing with an adult on something you'd hardly hit them would you? As soon
as it's a small child however, that's ok? It seems like a perverse logic to me. Violence
leads to violence and it just teaches children that hitting is an acceptable way to settle
an argument. Maybe children in the 80's and 90's were hit too much, Mike from High Wycombe
- of course smacking should be banned. Let the government impose some sort of law and see
how many people just ignore it. It is a parent's right to punish their child, just as it
is their duty to care for them. Look at today's teenagers to see what sort of future we
are creating for ourselves. Frankly, judging by what we see of the up and coming
generation I'm terrified for the future of this country.
Part of today's problems especially with anti-social
behaviour is borne out by the fact that the role of parents is constantly being eroded by
"do-gooders". They bleat on one day about ASBO's and next day say that parents
should not be allowed to smack children. There is a difference between "short, sharp,
shock" and outright abuse but sadly these people chose not to recognise this. Yet
they will be the first to shout out about the "yob culture" that is gathering
pace in this Country. I have two boys aged 10 & 6 and have never
smacked them; they are well behaved normal boys. Teaching children that hurting someone
enables you to control them is hardly a good lesson for life. The comment about smacking a
child to prevent harm - how about moving them out of harms way without the smack? Yes! But with a loving hand. I set out to be a liberal parent who would use
reasoning and example to teach my child. Here's news for non-parents out there - it
doesn't work. Now I smack though only if she does something which could endanger her. I
discuss with her afterwards why she was smacked. This way she may learn the reasons behind
the smack but the smack itself is there to stop potentially harmful behaviour and prevent
its reoccurrence. And she is a very happy and safe 3 yr old.
You are legally responsible for your children, you
hold their passports, you open their bank accounts, and you are punished if they skip
school. The State does not perform these functions on your behalf, so why should it tell
you how to bring up your kids? Politicians should stick to politics, not parenting. This government needs to learn how to govern rather
than control. It is a subtle difference similar to that between smacking and abuse. One is
helpful, the other is a dangerous step backwards. Children legislators and policymakers should
concentrate on providing real and quality educational services for children. Leave
discipline to the parents. There are already laws in place to prevent and address abuse.
All policymakers that are promoting and pushing this bill should be removed from office. Why do some people think it not right to strike an
adult, but OK to hit a defenceless child in your care? This is the nanny state at its worst. The existing
laws against child abuse are already adequate to prevent harm to children. This is pure
interference in normal family life. It should be left to the family to decide how to raise
their children. It should not be the job of government to impose their own political and
social values upon the rest of the country under the dubious argument of child protection.
It is too easy to smack young children rather than
stand back and reflect as a parent on your own actions i.e. why you smack them. I vote for
outright ban and for children's rights enshrined by law. This bill will not stop abusers. You cannot make
people righteous by an Act of Parliament. Instead intolerable pressure will be placed on
loving parents. You just have to look around you to see the lack of
respect that youngster have now, to see that parent discipline is needed. I have two kids,
the only way to teach them the rights and wrongs is at times to smack them, as long as it
is not hard and aggressive and is a means to teach them what's right and what's wrong. It
did me no harm when I was young. Also how are the government going to enforce it? If we aren't allowed to chastise our children, can
you imagine what state our society will be in, in 10 years time? I think parents should
have the right to smack their children to prevent a lawless society in the future. As a person who was smacked as a child I do not agree
with smacking. No argument for the "right" to smack a child has ever convinced
me to change my mind How many parents who smack have looked into all the available options
such a positive parenting and alternative forms of discipline and then said "no,
smacking is still the way for me"? I suspect hardly any. They are lazy people who are
stuck in their ways, no wonder the Swedish call smacking the "English disease"
Yes, parents have the right to smack, not beat, their
children. A swat on the backside is not child abuse. We have a generation of spoiled brats
running amuck on our streets. We must be allowed to discipline our children when they are
young. Starting when they are teens is too late. The government are going about this in the wrong way.
Parents, who have a hard enough time as it is, shouldn't be criminalised but re-educated.
Hitting a child (which let's face it, is what "smacking" is) is wrong as it
teaches a child that inflicting pain on someone else is acceptable. Should we be surprised
if kids who are regularly beaten, end up hitting their peers? Basically parents hit their
kids either because they've lost control of the situation (happens to us all, sadly) or
they are too lazy to take the time to understand better ways of dealing with bad
behaviour. In our society we have made the correct assumption
that a certain percentage of the grown-ups will behave unreasonably despite all the good
will from the rest of the society. This is the reason we have a legal system that punishes
those that do not follow 'the law'. Those who are against smacking have assumed that
children will behave more reasonably than the grown ups and that we should not have the
need to punish them in any way. This is obviously naive and in the long term against the
interests of the children. The parents and teachers should have the right to smack the
children provided that no physical damage is caused and within reason to avoid cruel
behaviour. I think children need to have a strong boundaries set
and enforced and if that involves the occasional smack then GOOD. Most kids these days are
rude and its no wonder there is so much juvenile crime. Perhaps the NSPCC and other
Children's Charities involved in this campaign have nothing better to do. NO!! Parents should have no more right to smack
children than husbands have to smack wives, or I have to smack you. Ideas about dog
training seem to have progressed further than ideas about parenting in this country. Everyone here is concentrating on whether it is right
to smack a child or not, but no-one is asking what the consequences of imprisoning parents
might be. Is it really thought to be in the child's best interest that their parent goes
to prison over a minor smack? We already have parents in prison over child truancy, and
overall I have no reason to believe that this has created better children in consequence,
so how will sending parents to prison for smacking help to improve the child's life?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of smacking, is it really the greater of the two evil's
here? Some parents don't seem to mind their kids running
riot and causing chaos. Unfortunately we ALL suffer the consequences. ALL parents have a
right to discipline their children. Take away that right, and watch society decay even
further. It's not to late to reverse the trend.
One of the most critical of life's lessons, not least
in respect for others, is an awareness of consequence. Sometimes the last resort in
teaching the error of inappropriate or dangerous behaviour to a child has to be a smack.
However I've never come to this point with any of my three children without feeling that
I'd already failed as both a human being and parent. To abdicate your responsibility as a
parent just because there is no other more palatable resort would be, to my mind,
inexcusable. However revolting some musty old Labour rebels might become in the Commons
over this matter, the well-being of my children, and in that I maintain that I am the
better judge, will always be put first in my mind. Yes of course you should. I have four year old twins
that are rarely smacked now but as two and three year olds seemed to have a smack on the
hand almost weekly. At that age the smack is very light, but teaches them not to do what
they've been asked not to. They are now old enough to reason with and I don't need to
smack them as a look is generally sufficient. Look around you, there's no respect for
anything anymore simply because we don't apply boundaries for our youngsters. As for
assigning a social worker to those parents that smack, that is ludicrous! So what are you saying here? If I were to hit an
adult it is assault. If I hit my child it is OK under current law. I have 2 children and
have never smacked them and I have no intention of starting. I absolutely agree with smacking. I don't have any
kids but I am a well-adjusted, intelligent and happy guy of 24 who got smacked if I was
bad as a child. I particularly remember one time, where I stole a cousins toy and my mum
smacked me needless to say I learned a valuable lesson and I never stole another thing in
my life. How can that be a bad thing??
I don't think that smacking is either good or bad,
it's the motivation which drives it which is open to question. Many parents will smack in
response to their own anger and this is a dangerous road often leading to abuse. However
as many have commented a smack to enforce a lesson learned, often given through love or
concern is all together different. The real problem is, how do you legislate something as
ephemeral as motivation? My son had a few 'taps' when he was small, now he is
13 and I can reason with him (well most of the time). Our society is already spiralling
out of control, teachers often fear students they are unable to control now. Legislation
banned hand guns, which did away with legitimate gun clubs but has not taken the guns off
the streets. The abusers will continue to abuse and our youngsters will become
uncontrollable. Of course parents should have the right to smack
their children. Talking simply does not go far enough sometimes. Children must understand
when they continually cross the line of disobedience, they will be smacked. Most definitely. Kids are running riot in our streets
with no fear of consequence. Children do not posses the ability to reason with adults and
should be disciplined until they are old enough to recognise acceptable behaviour
I'm shocked at how many people have written thinking
it's right to smack children. I can't believe they have their own children. I have four
and I have never had the need to smack them to discipline them. Twice I have done and both
times it was to do with my own tiredness or frustration. It is clearly wrong to hit
someone and the smaller the person the more wrong. We need to respect children more and we
will have a better society as a result. If it was outlawed it wouldn't result in arrests
but it would change attitudes - like wearing seatbelts in cars. If you're going to compare children to adults, you
would have to let kids do as they please, go to bed when they please, go to school only if
they want to. If smacking is assault then surely refusing food, or sending them to their
room all alone is also violating their rights? I am absolutely horrified that so many of you support
a parents so called right to smack children. What about the children's rights? Whatever
happened to communication and explaining why the behaviour they are committing is wrong?
No wonder the youth of today is more antisocial and disrespectful to authority!
Absolutely, yes. I was smacked as a child, and I
think it did me good, though it wasn't particularly pleasant at the time! If this ban is
instigated it will move the UK closer to the ridiculous litigious society of America.
Parents and people in general should have the right to make some decisions without the
government's help. Here we go again, legislation for society's lowest
common denominator. It is no business of some Westminster-bound MP how I bring up my
children, so long as they are not abused. I've found it amazing the number of friends who
could be described as falling into the yogurt-weaving category, who have changed their
minds about that 'little smack' since they have actually had children to bring up. I've
yet to hear a solution to stopping a three year old from sticking their hand in the fire
when they're having a temper tantrum. Engaging them in debate over their human rights
never seems to work. A smack is not abuse or a beating. It's a short sharp
reminder to a young child of who's boss until they're old enough to reason with you. At a
time when parents are being blamed for a wide range of discipline-related issues, banning
smacking takes another step towards removing all parental authority while leaving them
with all the responsibility - a lose-lose situation.
In Sweden smacking is illegal and Sweden has a lower
youth offender rate than Britain, as well as lower under age STD rates and pregnancy
rates, as well lower delinquency rates. Smacking an adult when they do something wrong is
legally defined as assault. The question of whether or not parents should be allowed to
smack their children is in fact the question of whether or not they should be allowed to
assault them. I was smacked as a child and it has scarred me for life. I will never ever
assault my daughter in that manner and I would prosecute anyone else who did. How far will this go? Will the government ban parents
telling off their children because of the psychological damage it could do? Parents must
have means by which they can teach their children what is and what is not acceptable. Another useless bill wasting everyone's time and
money. We already have legislation in place to protect children from serious mental and
physical abuse. No one is advocating the right to beat children, just the right to make
them know a short sharp shock will happen if they misbehave. Anyone would think we've been
nothing but a generation of crippled insecure shells, the way supporters of a ban make
out.
Is this law going to stop abuse - no. Abuse is
already against the law and any parent likely to abuse a child will still do so. And what
is this nonsense about "skin reddening". Any smack, even light ones, will cause
the skin to redden slightly. Are we going to have "redness meters" to determine
the level of abuse? What about "OK to smack as long as it's not a punishment! What
else are you going to smack a child for - fun? The whole thing is stupid and just
contributes to a society where kids think they can get away with anything. I have a 14 month old little girl and I will smack
her if need arise - often this is to instil the dangers of a situation in other words
aversion therapy. Child abuse won't be stopped by this law, only good parents will suffer
under it. It also worries me that we will get an even worse generation of kids/teens than
we currently have who will have no discipline and no respect for anything or anyone as
they can't be touched. I might end up in court but I also might end up with a good citizen
for a kid and I'll take the risk for her sake.
The reason why we have so much anti-social behaviour
is because kids who were brought up in the 1980s and 1990s were not chastised enough. Not
just parents, but also teachers should be allowed to smack unruly children. Caning should
be reintroduced in all schools above the infants class. I was smacked on my bottom for disobedience as a
child and it hasn't done me any harm. However, I don't believe in smacking children. I
believe there is always an alternative way in handling a difficult situation and not
having to resort to violence, however minor that may be. What is the next step? To get a license before
becoming a parent? The whole issue is a lot more serious than it appears. Although there
are cases where the state should interfere in domestic life, the less it interferes, the
better. Imagine how difficult would be for a parent to tell off their child once that
child starts to threaten that they will turn to the police. I think that giving a naughty child a smack on the
bottom is a lot better than standing in the middle of the street, screaming and shouting
at children. The children in this country are very undisciplined and are growing up to be
hooligans. Parents are inconsiderate and children just plain irritating.
A young child is unable to understand complex
reasoning, but can link disobedience with pain. Get it right with the under 5's and you
only have to give them a stern look later in life. If you are still smacking at 8 or 9,
you have already failed. Ah the nanny state! What next? Speaking to our
children with raised voices to be a criminal offence, because of the mental harm it will
cause! The key to successful discipline is consistency and
not the use of violence. Violence can be counter-productive because it teaches the use of
violence as a means to get your own way. Ideally the smacking of children should be
stopped altogether, but I don't think this is achievable yet. Were social services not
already overstretched, the best response to a smacker would be to appoint a social worker
to keep an eye on the situation, and help the family learn more effective and humane
methods of discipline.
Unfortunately there are no viable alternatives to
smacking a child. Young children do not understand and cannot be reasoned with as you
would an adult. Their senses of right and wrong are very blurred. The only way you can
reinforce good or bad behaviour is reward or punishment. Smacking is one of the only
punishments that works effectively. It is not abuse, it is instilling discipline in the
child, something which liberal parents do not do anymore. This law will not stop the few parents who go over
the top and injure their children, which is already against the law. The anti-smacking
campaigners probably have not suffered from gangs of ill disciplined kids making life a
misery for them and their neighbours. The gradual erosion of parents and teachers ability
to correct children's behaviour has resulted in the increasing yob culture we suffer from
today. Leave parents alone to bring up their children as they see fit, and punish those
who go over the top. And return some effective form of punishment to school teachers. If you are going to call smacking, beating, you might
as well equate hugging with sexual molestation. Those who seek to ban loving discipline in
the home should first learn a bit of common sense.
Reasoning with a two or three year old about the
dangers of running into the road won't ever work. A little bit of pain and a NO! really
helps. Rather that than run under a bus. Would the government please stop interfering with
every aspect of our life and "govern" the country, not us. Regardless of what I think on the matter the wishes
of the people are crystal clear on the matter. Those in public office voting to ban
smacking have continuously ignored the people - what protection do we have against these
people? They should be fired. It is ridiculous that I should not be allowed to
smack my child. It never did me any harm when I was young.
Yes. A smack is a smack. It's not being hit or beaten
or whipped or abused. It's a smack. I don't condone using it as a regular and consistent
form of discipline, but neither do I condone making criminals out of parents. I'm so sick and tired of hearing the self righteous
preach about how wrong it is to smack children. The fact is, kids today are insolent and
unruly, and occasionally need to be disciplined. They have no discipline at school, and
sometimes the only language they can understand is a sharp smack on the backside. It never
did me any harm when I was a kid, and I see myself as secure, polite and friendly. There
is, however, the risk of child abuse in this, so there must be some restrictions. Oh, and
if I sound old-fashioned, I'm actually only 21. I would go one stage further - if someone else's
screaming kid is giving you a headache in the supermarket, and they are not controlling
them, you should be allowed to smack them. Yes. Speaking as a parent of five children who now
have their own children I believe that a little 'pain' at an early age administered with
love and forgiveness prevents a lot of real pain later.
What a load of nonsense! I was smacked as a child,
and I wouldn't change a thing. It hasn't caused any more damage than there would have been
if I'd been grounded or had my pocket money stopped instead - quite the opposite. It was
over and done with, and I learned my lesson(s). It is only a few minutes of anger instead
of weeks of unhappiness leading onto years of resentment. Where's the problem? Too many
people confuse smacking with beating - but there is a world of difference between
discipline and abuse. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why does the government feel it needs
to pass a Bill on outlawing smacking of children? 
