Smacking again

Today there was a more measured argument for smacking published in CiF. More measured, but not any heavier on cold hard facts. In the authors defence (Jenni Russell) this is probably because there isn't much in the way or independent research on this subject. However, a quick Google and a couple of reports later, I felt ready to plow into the discussion on the side of the anti-smacking brigade. I even managed to tie it together with EU chemical legislation ;)

If anyone is actually interested in reviewing the evidence for and against a smacking ban, instead of just leaping to instinctive positions, the Scottish Executive produced a report reviewing the evidence both for and against a ban:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_brief/sb02-102.pdf

The largest body of research has been produced by Joan Durrant for Save the Children, looking at the effects of the ban in Sweden. It should however be noted that she is a pro-ban advocate, and the work has been subject to criticism (listed in the Scottish Executive report).

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/GenerationwithoutSmacking.pdf

"Despite the overwrought righteousness of biba2mejico or davetheslave, smacking children is not the same as hitting them".

I think the people who claim this, HowSoonIsNow, MrPikeBishop and Jenni Russell amongst others, really need a lesson in semantics. Look it up in the dictionary:

Main Entry: 1hit
Pronunciation: 'hit
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): hit; hit�ting
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hyttan, probably from Old Norse hitta to meet with, hit
transitive verb
1 a : to reach with or as if with a blow b : to come in contact with c : to strike (as a ball) with an object (as a bat, club, or racket) so as to impart or redirect motion
2 a : to cause to come into contact b : to deliver (as a blow) by action c : to apply forcefully or suddenly

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=hitting

Under any reasonable definition of hitting, smacking counts, regardless of whether the intention is to cause pain or not.

As for the accusation of "overwrought righteousness" levelled at me, all I have done so for is to point out that it's ridiculous to claim that smacking isn't hitting. I haven't espoused my own view on smacking at all, although it could probably be surmised that i'm against it :)

My opinion, based on the available evidence is that on balance a ban would do more good than harm. It sends a very clear message that violence against children will not be tolerated, it possibly leads to a reduction in child abuse, and it definitely has no negative impact on child behaviour. If properly formulated (admittedly a big IF with the current legislation junkies) a ban need not lead to the foundationless prosecution of parents.

In conclusion, smacking has been shown to be an unnecessary disciplinary tool; it is potentially harmful and even smacking advocates state that they are "delighted if people can bring up their children without smacking them". I see therefore no good reason for allowing it.

Coincidentally, this argument invokes the "precautionary principle" that environmentalists often call for, and which is the basis for the REACH legislation on chemicals going through the European Parliament just now.