Corporal Punishment of Children - Essay Example

Corporal Punishment of Children Corporal punishment in children is the deliberate use of physical contact intended to cause the child pain, although not injury, as a disciplinary or corrective technique (Donnelly and Straus 2005, 3). Corporal punishment is the second most frequently used child disciplinary technique used globally (Durant 1994, 107). Both legal and religious customs have enabled support of corporal punishment both at home and in school universally (Flynn, 1994, 314). However, there has been a growing trend over the last several years in which the value of corporal punishment of children is challenged (Flynn, 1994, 314). The debate over the value of corporal punishment of children is unrelenting. It is deeply entrenched in Western cultures and is evidenced in nursery rhymes including such as Tom, Tom the Piper’s Son (Adams 1998, 119). There are essentially three sides of the debate. The arguments in favor of corporal punishment of children claim that it is often the most effective method of deterrence and some children cannot be controlled or corrected by alternative methods. Arguments against corporal punishment of children look at empirical research results that indicate that corporal punishment has long and short-term consequences and does more harm than good (Donnelly and Straus 2005, 145). The third position is defined as “conditional” and takes the position that corporal punishment of children can have both negative and positive consequences and much depends on the circumstances and the prevailing conditions (Connolly and Ward 2005, 118). Mild spanking for instance is supported by those who sit on the fence and they argue that is an “effective alternative to other disciplinary practices” (Connolly and Ward 2005, 118). This view has influenced legal systems to modify laws setting restrictions on the extent to which chastisement is reasonable (Connolly and Ward 2005, 118). There are a number of arguments in favour of corporal punishment of children. One of those arguments maintain that corporal punishment only punishes the offender. In other words, others do not have to share some of the punishment. For example, if a parent has two children in school and one child is placed in detention after school, the parent will be required to make two trips to school (Benatar, 2001). Another argument is that corporal punishment does not deprive the offender of other essential rights and needs. For example, expulsion from school could deprive the child of the right to an education and could negatively impact the child’s progress if he or she misses a valuable day of lessons (Benatar, 2001). The author does not find any of these arguments in favour of corporal punishment of children persuasive of convincing. For instance, the fact that corporal punishment could be justified on the grounds that it is quick and only the offender suffers is countered by the fact that corporal punishment causes an inconvenience to others as well. For instance if a child is beaten by a school official, someone has to undertake the unpleasant task of administering the punishment. Moreover, the media and growing public opinion and movements against corporal punishment exposes the person or institution administering the punishment to public condemnation. Therefore corporal punishment is not confined to the offender. The argument that corporal punishment does not deprive the offender of other essential rights is also countered by the fact that alternative forms of punishment do not deprive the child of the right to human dignity to the extent that corporal punishment does. The Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically forbids corporal punishment by imploring contracting states to take all measures to: …take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child (Convention on the Rights of the Child 1979, Article 19(1)). It therefore follows from Article 19(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1979 that protection against corporal punishment of children is a universally protected right. The adverse consequences of corporal punishment justifies the position taken the Convention of 1979. Moreover, it has no practical effect on the young child. The young child who is spanked may only know that the parent or teacher is not pleased but will not know why (International Debate Education Association 2004, 59). In this regard, the child’s attention is not on the conduct that warranted spanking but on the spanking itself and there is no normative evaluation of the conduct. Moreover, physical punishment particularly in school has the potential to “provoke resentment and further misbehavior” (International Debate Education Association 2004, 59). Others argue that regardless of how structured, moderate or orderly corporal punishment is administered, there are unavoidable consequences for the child’s wellbeing. For one thing, the child can lose trust in the adults administering the punishment and learn that physical force is an acceptable form of communication and response. Additionally, children become humiliated and can lose their own self-respect and can development resentment which in turn may give way to behavioral problems along the way (International Debate Education Association 2004, 59). Having considered the arguments for and against corporal punishment of children, the author is of the opinion that the risk of harm to the child’s development clearly indicate that alternative forms of punishment should be used. Corporal punishment by its very nature is entirely punitive in nature with no rehabilitative values. This is because it does not inform the child, particularly the young child of the reasons for the punishment. It is not enough for the child to know that the adult is displeased with a particular form of conduct, the child needs to be informed that the conduct is wrong and why it is wrong. A child overcome by the humiliation of a beating and the associative low self-esteem is not minded to pay attention to any subsequent discussion or instruction on the matter. The inherent danger of the child learning that physical force is acceptable has the most persuasive value. It there is a danger that a child will learn to pattern his or her conduct from the adults that administer physical force, the child can develop into an adult who uses the same method of punishment against others. Ultimately, corporal punishment of children does more harm than good and is therefore disproportionate to the wrong it seeks to deter. In all the circumstances other and more effective means of correction and punishment can be used to rehabilitate and correct children with minimal or no harm to the child’s healthy development. Works Cited Adams, R. The Abuses of Punishment. Palgrave MacMillan, 1998. Benatar, D. Corporal Punishment. World Corporal Punishment Research, 2001 http://www.corpun.com/benatar.htm (Retrieved December 9, 2009). Connolly, M. and Ward, T. Morals, Rights and Practice in the Human Services: Effective and Fair Decision-Making in Health, Social Care and Criminal Justice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2005. Convention on the Rights of the Child 1979. Donnelly, M. and Straus, M. Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective. Yale University Press, 2005. Durrant, J. “Public Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment in Canada”. Cited in Frehsee, D.; Horn, W. and Bussman, K . (eds) Family Violence Against Children: A Challenge for Society. Walter de Gruyter, 1994. Flynn, C. “Regional Differences in Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment.” Journal of Marriage and Family. Vol. 56(2), (1994): 314-324. International Debate Education Association. The Database Book: A Must-have Guide for Successful Debate. IDEA, 2004. Read More