Supporting
parents?
Corporal
punishment has already been banned in all schools, nurseries and
children’s homes. Now (2000) the civil government have produced a 25 page
consultation document on the matter of physical punishment of
children in the home called Protecting
children, supporting parents. It has only to
do with England, but similar documents will no doubt be produced in
connection with legislation in the other home countries.
The document
presents itself as a reasoned and unbiased approach to the subject
but we should not be taken in by its apparently neutral stance. It
begins by saying that as the law presently stands a parent challenged
over corporal punishment and taken to court can raise a defence of
‘reasonable chastisement’. This idea, according to the document,
‘has its origins in Victorian times’. Why this phrase is used is
unclear unless to undermine the idea as out of date. The European
Court of Human Rights is unhappy, it appears, not with the concept but
its application and so the United Kingdom is obliged to alter its
laws in this area. Hence the document.
The paper
goes on to assert that the government does not think it right to make
smacking or similar punishments unlawful. They distinguish, in a way
that many do not, between beating children and ‘mild physical
rebuke’. It promises that the government is seeking to support the
institution of marriage and does not want to introduce heavy handed
interference in families. All this sounds encouraging. However, the
paper also talks of a new National Family and
Parent Institute and a new telephone helpline
for parents. This prospect is much less re-assuring. It is made quite
clear that the aim of such institutions will be to aid and abet
parents in finding means of punishment other than those that involve
physical punishment. In other words this is a government that is not
against ‘mild physical rebuke’ and yet will be ploughing precious
resources into encouraging parents not to use this biblically
sanctioned method of punishment.
Opinion
poll
One of the
government’s problems is that, as the paper reveals, a poll
revealed that 88% of us are in favour of smacking. Therefore, it is
not easy to bring in a law banning it. The plan appears to be,
therefore, to chip away at public opinion until it changes. All that
is necessary in light of the decision of the European Court is to
prevent ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ from being defended as
‘reasonable chastisement’. However, the government is taking the
opportunity to consult widely on further issues with a view to
introducing new law in these areas.
Questions
They appear
to be asking four questions in particular.
1. Apart
from what is set out in the document, what factors should the law
require a court to consider when determining whether physical
punishment of a child constitutes ‘reasonable chastisement’?
2. Are there
any forms of physical punishment that should never be capable of
being defended as reasonable. Specifically, should the law say there
is no reasonable defence for
- Physical punishment that causes, or is likely to cause, injuries to the head.
- Physical punishment using implements (eg canes, slippers, belts).
3. Should
the defence of reasonable chastisement not be open to those charged
with the more serious crime of causing actual bodily harm or worse?
4. Should
those able to plead ‘reasonable chastisement’ be, as now, both
parents and those acting on their behalf or should it be limited to
either
- Parents only.
- Parents and those acing on their behalf where express permission has been given for physical punishment.
No rod?
The most
disturbing element here is the idea that use of an implement should
be outlawed. The Bible specifically refers to use of the
rod and so any attempt to outlaw its use is
against the Bible and against Christianity. Further, it is a fact
that without due care more damage can be done with the hand as its
force is spread across the fingers of one hand and can easily jolt
the poor child’s whole body. With an implement the blow is
concentrated in one narrow area. It can be more painful but it is
less likely to do permanent damage.
Though for
many it is a not an issue removing the automatic right to physical
punishment from those who are in loco parentis
is unwelcome to some. The idea of limiting
all physical punishment to parents only is even more unwelcome.
One is
loathe to make a great fuss in an area like this. It is not that
Christians want to beat their children. This is something that
affects us all, as a generation grows up without firm and loving
discipline at home. As much as some people in this country detest the
rod, they are metaphorically making one for their own backs by
neglecting children in this way. Other forms of punishment simply do
not work and are often psychologically damaging. The short sharp
shock is not a panacea for all ills but children who are denied it
are certainly being deprived. It is a pity that this government seems
unaware of the dangers they are courting as they show their
willingness, once again, to completely disregard biblical teaching.
If anyone
wants to see the document referred to and respond to the questions
put (before April 2000), it can be obtained from the Health Department or accessed at:
Responses
need to be in written form and sent by ordinary post.
This article first appeared in Grace Magazine
In 2004 the Children's Act was passed. It updated the legislation on physical punishment (section 58) by limiting the use of the defence of reasonable punishment so that it can no longer be used when people are charged with the offences against a child of wounding, actual or grievous bodily harm or cruelty. Therefore any injury sustained by a child which is serious enough to warrant a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm cannot be considered to be as the result of reasonable punishment. It does not appear to have caused problems for Christians.
