Letter: When it is all right to smack a child
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: To many of us who believe passionately in children's rights it is distressing to hear the repetition of myths and shibboleths, by anti-corporal punishment groups, over the recent child-minder case.
Myth one is that a smack, given in a context of loving discipline for consistent wilful disobedience or cruelty, is equivalent to child beating and abuse - when actually the context and import are entirely dffferent. To accept this myth would be like accepting that because sticking knives in unconscious people is wrong generally, doctors shouldn't do it either.
Myth two is that 'hitting' a child is an admission of failure - when actually smacking can be part of a deliberate loving discipline policy.
Myth three is that if it is wrong to 'hit' adults, then it must be wrong to 'hit' children - when no one would argue the other side of the coin: that young children should be made criminally responsible like adults or should be tried and imprisoned for anti-social or violent behaviour to others.
Myth four is that smacking children gives them violence to copy and makes them more violent - a myth for which there is not the slightest empirical evidence and which is belied by countless numbers of well-adjusted, non-violent teenagers and adults who as children were smacked in a context of loving discipline.
Unfortunately, focus on the myths distracts from the reality. Many children are indeed sexually, physically or emotionally abused, and need rights and protection. Certain actions, such as shaking a child, are physically dangerous and should be outlawed. Physical punishment in itself is useless and pointless if not part of a loving, secure environment. Smacking should be in a context of secure, loving discipline, given for the benefit of the child, not merely an expression of parental (or a child minder's) frustration. For older children, punishments of loss of privilege become more appropriate, for they understand better 'long-term' effects.
Let us, then, abandon myths, see sensible guidelines adopted and get back to what needs to be done to protect children from cruelty and abuse in any civilised society.
Yours faithfully,
V. PAUL MARSTON
Chairperson, Social and Moral Issues Committee
Free Methodist Church UK
Preston, Lancashire
17 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments