Children's commision calls for complete ban on smacking
Discussion
Yet another proposal to increase medalling in people's lives.
Parents are the people to decide what punishment is appropriate for their children (within reason), not the state.
Commission calls for a ban on even the gentlest smacking of children
By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 11/11/2005)
Parents should be banned from inflicting even the mildest of smacks on their children because they often do it out of anger and "social stress" rather than as a "considered disciplinary measure", a report said yesterday.
The Commission on Families and the Wellbeing of Children, chaired by an eminent child psychiatrist, said smacking could escalate to "frank abuse" and it was wrong for children to have less legal protection than adults.
Parents face up to five years' imprisonment if they leave a mark
Under the law, mild smacking is allowed but parents who hit children hard enough to leave a mark face up to five years' imprisonment.
A "reasonable chastisement" defence is still available to parents but they can be charged with common assault if a smack causes bruises, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts.
The Government suffered a rebellion by 47 Labour MPs who wanted a total ban on smacking when the measures were passed in the Children Act last November.
But the commission said: "The defence to a charge of common assault of reasonable chastisement by a parent should be abolished."
The commission was set up by the Government-funded National Family and Parenting Institute and the children's charity NCH, formerly the National Children's Homes, which receives most of its income from the Government.
It is funded, however, by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an independent charity.
Prof Sir Michael Rutter, who chairs the commission, said: "Although most parents who use physical discipline do not abuse their children, research has shown that children in families where physical discipline is used extensively are more likely. . . to be physically abused."
The report cited research showing a link between families with a culture of violence "including the regular use of physical punishment" and "incidence of physical abuse".
It said the evidence pointed to physical abuse arising in response to "anger, emotional and social stress and family relationship problems - often as an expression of parental rejection or hostility".
Parents who hit their children often did so as a way of dealing with their own anger and frustration.
On whether smacking was effective, the report said: "Corporal punishment as with other forms of discipline can secure compliance with parental demands. However, there is evidence of some link with behaviour problems including aggression and anti-social behaviour in the longer term."
The report said under-12s should never be held responsible for their crimes, no matter how serious.
The law states that children under 10 cannot commit crimes because they are too young to weigh up what is right and wrong and to deliberately break the law.
But research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, used by the commission, said a child's understanding of crime may not be fully developed until their late teens, even though a "degree of maturation" was achieved by 14.
Sir Michael said there needed to be a clear distinction between where the child's responsibility ended and the parent's began. Although it was fair to say there was overlap, there needed to be a "cut-off" age to mark out responsibility in a court of law.
He said the age of criminal responsibility should be increased to 12 but added that doli incapax - a presumption of innocence - should be reintroduced up to the age of 16 to allow for the "highly variable process of moral development in children".
Critics said this meant half a million burglars and drug dealers would only rarely be brought before the courts.
But Sir Michael stressed: "We are not saying people should not be brought before the courts but that it should be done with the proper recognition of the immaturity of kids as young as 10.
"Nor are we saying that children should be let off but [we are] asking 'does the child know what he has done is wrong and have the ability to see consequences?'."
The commission called for the Government to issue clear guidelines on the age when children could be left by themselves and the minimum age at which a child could act as a babysitter.
Parents are the people to decide what punishment is appropriate for their children (within reason), not the state.
Commission calls for a ban on even the gentlest smacking of children
By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 11/11/2005)
Parents should be banned from inflicting even the mildest of smacks on their children because they often do it out of anger and "social stress" rather than as a "considered disciplinary measure", a report said yesterday.
The Commission on Families and the Wellbeing of Children, chaired by an eminent child psychiatrist, said smacking could escalate to "frank abuse" and it was wrong for children to have less legal protection than adults.
Parents face up to five years' imprisonment if they leave a mark
Under the law, mild smacking is allowed but parents who hit children hard enough to leave a mark face up to five years' imprisonment.
A "reasonable chastisement" defence is still available to parents but they can be charged with common assault if a smack causes bruises, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts.
The Government suffered a rebellion by 47 Labour MPs who wanted a total ban on smacking when the measures were passed in the Children Act last November.
But the commission said: "The defence to a charge of common assault of reasonable chastisement by a parent should be abolished."
The commission was set up by the Government-funded National Family and Parenting Institute and the children's charity NCH, formerly the National Children's Homes, which receives most of its income from the Government.
It is funded, however, by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an independent charity.
Prof Sir Michael Rutter, who chairs the commission, said: "Although most parents who use physical discipline do not abuse their children, research has shown that children in families where physical discipline is used extensively are more likely. . . to be physically abused."
The report cited research showing a link between families with a culture of violence "including the regular use of physical punishment" and "incidence of physical abuse".
It said the evidence pointed to physical abuse arising in response to "anger, emotional and social stress and family relationship problems - often as an expression of parental rejection or hostility".
Parents who hit their children often did so as a way of dealing with their own anger and frustration.
On whether smacking was effective, the report said: "Corporal punishment as with other forms of discipline can secure compliance with parental demands. However, there is evidence of some link with behaviour problems including aggression and anti-social behaviour in the longer term."
The report said under-12s should never be held responsible for their crimes, no matter how serious.
The law states that children under 10 cannot commit crimes because they are too young to weigh up what is right and wrong and to deliberately break the law.
But research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, used by the commission, said a child's understanding of crime may not be fully developed until their late teens, even though a "degree of maturation" was achieved by 14.
Sir Michael said there needed to be a clear distinction between where the child's responsibility ended and the parent's began. Although it was fair to say there was overlap, there needed to be a "cut-off" age to mark out responsibility in a court of law.
He said the age of criminal responsibility should be increased to 12 but added that doli incapax - a presumption of innocence - should be reintroduced up to the age of 16 to allow for the "highly variable process of moral development in children".
Critics said this meant half a million burglars and drug dealers would only rarely be brought before the courts.
But Sir Michael stressed: "We are not saying people should not be brought before the courts but that it should be done with the proper recognition of the immaturity of kids as young as 10.
"Nor are we saying that children should be let off but [we are] asking 'does the child know what he has done is wrong and have the ability to see consequences?'."
The commission called for the Government to issue clear guidelines on the age when children could be left by themselves and the minimum age at which a child could act as a babysitter.
I presume that the "eminent child psychiatrist" has also considered the effect of seperating a child for 5years from it's imprisoned parents?
Psychiatry is IMO given far more legitimacy as a discipline/science than it deserves. It more than any other 'science' seems to be in the business of dressing up opinion and prejudice as fact.
Psychiatry is IMO given far more legitimacy as a discipline/science than it deserves. It more than any other 'science' seems to be in the business of dressing up opinion and prejudice as fact.
What a load of b
s. Any kid I know knows when they have done wrong from around the age of 6 and what they have to do (daddies girls/mammys boys) 
to get away with it.
"An assumed innocence upto the age of 16" your having a laugh aren't you? I'm sorry but if "children" are innocent to the age of 16 why the hell are "happy-slappings" and teenage pregnancies happening and kids getting stabbed in school and OAP's getting mugged and beaten by their own gran-kids? Innocent my arse.
s. Any kid I know knows when they have done wrong from around the age of 6 and what they have to do (daddies girls/mammys boys) to get away with it. "An assumed innocence upto the age of 16" your having a laugh aren't you? I'm sorry but if "children" are innocent to the age of 16 why the hell are "happy-slappings" and teenage pregnancies happening and kids getting stabbed in school and OAP's getting mugged and beaten by their own gran-kids? Innocent my arse.
Is the lack of discipline in this country not bad enough as it is? There are too many do good lentil-munching ar5eholes who have contributed in some way to the no good, work shy, ill mannered oiks who tend to frequent the majority of our schools(or not as the case may be)
If you misbehave you should get disciplined-simple. I got smacked as a child, I got the slipper once at school-I never did anything to warrant getting it again. Lesson learned. I don't condone violence towards children but I also disagree with not being able to touch them at all. A disobedient child needs discipline to learn right from wrong-not enough are doing and that is why we are seeing the degeneration of morals and behaviour that we are seeing this country today. There is a huge difference between an open hand slap and a closed handed punch.
And breathe.......
If you misbehave you should get disciplined-simple. I got smacked as a child, I got the slipper once at school-I never did anything to warrant getting it again. Lesson learned. I don't condone violence towards children but I also disagree with not being able to touch them at all. A disobedient child needs discipline to learn right from wrong-not enough are doing and that is why we are seeing the degeneration of morals and behaviour that we are seeing this country today. There is a huge difference between an open hand slap and a closed handed punch.
And breathe.......
I've seen the results of wet parenting not smacking naughty children, the children never listen to the parent and continue doing what they are doing. The example I have is in a glass shop that has lots of little easily breakable items for sale and signs saying "Children do not touch" yet they do and the parent does f'all about it, they say don't touch but the kid still does, they usually throw some weak warning of going to bed early if they don't then end up buying them something like sweets or ice cream 10mins later because it's the only way they know of keeping them occupied. Very weak. Someone could make a fortune running parenting courses.
Now there's nothing wrong with a good smack around the head, it never did me any harm
Now there's nothing wrong with a good smack around the head, it never did me any harm
The simplest of notions - that of cause and effect - is clearly beyond these people. They live in a world of abstract ideals and theories without for one moment actually taking a look at the real world and where it's heading.
Would the last sane person please turn of the lights etc...
Would the last sane person please turn of the lights etc...
Isn't the idea here that only the state can impose discipline or punishment?
If a child commits a crime then the state will punish the parent, and the child will be removed from the parents and raised by the state.
If the parent attempts to usurp the role of the state in a childs upbringing by imposing their own discipline, then again, the state will intervene to punish the parent and remove the child.
Given that the vast majority of children born in the UK are funded by state benefits it it not reasonable that the state should have control over it's children?
I.e. you choose not to work, but to have 4 children and receive £40,000 in state benefits. The state has paid for those children, they are in effect state property, so it is the state that will decide how they are bought up.
The fact that the state has effectively stolen, via the middle class tax burden, the money to pay for those children in the first place is neither here nor there. They are 'Browns Babies'.
>> Edited by timmy30 on Friday 11th November 13:53
If a child commits a crime then the state will punish the parent, and the child will be removed from the parents and raised by the state.
If the parent attempts to usurp the role of the state in a childs upbringing by imposing their own discipline, then again, the state will intervene to punish the parent and remove the child.
Given that the vast majority of children born in the UK are funded by state benefits it it not reasonable that the state should have control over it's children?
I.e. you choose not to work, but to have 4 children and receive £40,000 in state benefits. The state has paid for those children, they are in effect state property, so it is the state that will decide how they are bought up.
The fact that the state has effectively stolen, via the middle class tax burden, the money to pay for those children in the first place is neither here nor there. They are 'Browns Babies'.
>> Edited by timmy30 on Friday 11th November 13:53
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff