On Corporal Punishment

Having been approved by parliament, the Children’s Amendment Bill which outlaws corporal punishment, is one step away from being passed into law.

Is corporal punishment a barbaric practice that together with the likes of slavery should have no place in civilized society? Is it perhaps an age-old institution through which parents instill their understanding of right and wrong on their progeny?

Any discussion on corporal punishment will tend to address its six main facets: the validity of punishment, the transgression; the authority that implements the punishment; the person on whom the punishment is being inflicted; the means; and the consequences of the mutual ‘exchange’.

Without going into normative theories of state, the validity of punishment as a whole is presupposed by the bill – as it seeks to enforce the absence of certain actions with penalties attached when disobeyed. Indeed, the penal system is the formal means by which society through the authority of the judiciary seeks to rout out or punish unsuitable behaviour. By the same measure, in the informal setting of the family, parental authority extends to the behavioral nurturing of their children – punishment being a feature.

Once punishment is accepted, one has to ask which forms are permitted. Is corporal punishment inherently wrong? If so -- why? Many of its detractors claim it intrinsically violent and therefore abusive. One problem with this is that violence is often difficult to gauge in human interaction, and thus a deceptive criterion. A parent slapping a toddler’s hand as it reaches for the red-hot stove is violent, but saves the child from a lot of agony. Is this compassionate act therefore intrinsically wrong or abusive? Is it then perhaps that punishment is imposed against the recipient’s will? As any child will attest, punishment generally tends to be against their will. So is going to school; or eating all their veggies. Hence if it can’t be shown as inherently wrong, shouldn’t it be left up to the parent?

Another argument often thrown into the hat is the numerous cases of the physical abuse that accompany parents in the habit of applying corporal punishment. When discussed in terms of causation, corporal punishment is neither a necessary not sufficient ground for physical abuse. There are many parents who might give the odd hiding when the child has grossly erred, but never abuse their children -- hence, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Further, it’s naïve to judge anything by its abuse. By the same reasoning, alcohol, which causes many more deaths, illness and perhaps broken families, should also be outlawed.

What perhaps weighs heaviest against this bill is the state infringement on the privacy and autonomy of the family unit. In principle I’m immediately riled when the ‘nanny’ state starts prescribing the manner in which parents should raise their children. Should an abstracted and faceless bureaucracy infringe on the highly personal, interactive and diverse responsibility of the family? Obviously the children’s rights should be protected, but a ‘right from discipline’ is certainly not one of them.

This bill will only further strain an already overloaded policing and judicial system. The state should first deal with the current epidemic of crime, before adding another to its list.