Corporal punishment and the smacking ban in Scotland.

 Foreword. For anyone unlucky enough to have stumbled across this blog I would advise that the following post is one of my longer, more rambling efforts. This is because it deals with a complicated topic and I found it impossible to restrict myself to my brief opinions without doing an injustice to it’s seriousness. I apologise in advance.
------------
The Scottish government recently brought into law the banning of the smacking of children. While this might morally and ethically be a positive step I also suspect that this is a short sighted move which will only result in parents ending up with criminal records and fines (which many will struggle to pay) and maybe even jail time. I suspect most of any parents found guilty of this will come from our more deprived citizens (more about that later). I feel it is a law brought in by middle class politicians who have no real idea of life for those less comfortable than themselves and who have not enjoyed as good an education or upbringing. Note, however, that my understanding is that this is not a new law but an amendment to the existing law against assault which removes the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’. The effect of this, however, is to make smacking, or any other type of physical punishment, liable to prosecution.
The banning of corporal punishment in schools happened way back in the eighties (about 1987, although many councils, I understand, had independently introduced similar restrictions a few years previously). My late sister was a primary school teacher and she resigned as soon as corporal punishment was outlawed. I remember her saying that this was because she knew what was going to happen and she wanted out of the profession before her fears materialised (she moved to teaching children with special needs). It was not too many years later than I started to reading newspaper articles reporting that attacks on teachers in the past year had gone up, or down, by such and such a number. We also, increasingly, saw reports of children, even in primary schools, carrying knives into school and incidents of those knives actually being used with injury and even death being the outcome. The lack of any punishments, I feel sure, was a factor in this. I feel sure many bullies started carrying knives to reinforce their reign of terror as there was now no punishment against doing so that they feared - and that many pupils so bullied started carrying knives to, in their minds, protect themselves from being bullied in this way. I would argue that we never, or at worst only very, very rarely, saw teachers being attacked and children carrying knives prior to the banning of corporal punishment. 

I hated school because of the belt. I received this punishment throughout primary school and up until the end of the third year in secondary school and usually for things that the belt should never have been used for - like not getting my numbers correct or my grammar and spelling correct or being a minute or two late for class or for forgetting my gym kit or forgetting to do my homework. If I had not hated school so much then I might have been a better pupil and achieved more academically, probably gone to university and got a degree - but I wanted out of school as quickly as I could and left to start work with IBM with only two or three higher grade passes. At the same time I don’t believe that banning corporal punishment completely was the best way to proceed. The belt, in Scotland, was far too often used indiscriminately by frazzled teachers - some of whom were barely sane after a few years of this work. I believe it would have made more sense to retain corporal punishment for the more serious incidents and that restricting this to the head teachers, or their deputy, who would not just have been responding, in a knee jerk fashion, to minor incidents or educational failures in the classroom. By serious incidents I mean things like carrying and/or using weapons, bullying, carrying and selling drugs, deliberate damage to another’s property (or school property) and even theft. This would have left the possibility of an unwanted punishment as a possible outcome and might have resulted in serious misbehaviour remaining less common than it appears to be today. Instead, the total removal of corporal punishment only told the minority of badly behaved pupils that they could behave as they wanted and there would be no punishment they feared, or worth being concerned about, to scare them away from such behaviour.
As an example of this, there was a teacher in my secondary school (Greenock High School) known as ‘Big Dan’. In my very first lesson from him in first year he strode into the room a couple of minutes after the class was due to start. He was wearing his long, black gown. He continued his stride to a work bench at the front of the room (the subject was metal work - so no normal desks), made a chalk mark on the surface of it - and in one swift, continuous movement reached up and whipped out his belt (which had been draped over his shoulder under his gown) which he brought crashing down on the chalk mark he’d made. The chalk mark disappeared in a cloud of dust. He then informed the class that that was what anyone could expect if they stepped out of line in his classes. In my five years in that school I only ever saw Big Dan use his belt once. He did not, in this case, use as much force as he’d used in his demonstration - which was just as well as the victims would probably have ended up in hospital! The point, however, is that the threat of such a belting was all that was needed to ensure that no-one in his classes stepped out of line. There was a possible punishment which deterred all thought of misbehaviour.
Banning corporal punishment in schools might morally and ethically have been a good thing - but, on the other hand, it also resulted in some serious outcomes as outlined above. I would argue that if such progressive changes are made then there also needs to be alternatives already in place that can mitigate against those negative outcomes. I fear that banning parents from smacking their children could well also result, very quickly, in negative outcomes. In order to explain this I need to add another thread of background.
For the last (roughly) eighteen years of my working life I was a taxi driver in my home area of Inverclyde. This is an area of high deprivation, high unemployment, low income levels and many housing schemes where all the above were (and are) rampant. I frequently experienced examples of badly behaved children and parents totally unable to deal with this. I am not saying that this was the norm - but I witnessed both on many occasions - and almost always when taking passengers to one deprived housing scheme or another but rarely, if ever, when taking passengers to one of the less deprived areas. That is not to say I did not witness children behaving badly when taking them to one of the less deprived areas but in those cases the parents (or guardians) always seemed far more equipped to handle such bad behaviour without losing control and resorting to smacking. Why might that be the case? That is difficult to say without resorting to a political rant - but I’ll try.
Many of the parents in those deprived areas are working long hours at low pay and struggle to make ends meet. They are often in dangerous or stressful jobs (like call centres) and are totally exhausted and frazzled by the time they get home. Many have also been brought up by parents who lived in similar, or worse, circumstances and who also lacked good parenting skills (by today’s standards). So, in the latter case, some of the parents of today, from such a background, have no personal understanding of how to handle their children, as they were brought up by parents for whom the standard response to bad behaviour was a good smacking. Those parents of today are, in other words, repeating what they were taught by their parents as they have not been provided with any alternatives for dealing with the wayward child. If parents are simply overworked, stressed and frazzled then that results in them being unable, even if they know how, to dedicate the time to child rearing that is required. To be clear, I am not saying that this is the case with all parents from deprived areas but that it seems, from my experience as a taxi driver, to be the case with too many of them. This is also not restricted to the deprived areas. My own background was not in a seriously deprived area but I was frequently the recipient of a good smack or two (but only from my mother).
So what will be the result of the smacking ban? Most parents of today will be aware of the ban, although some may not be (unless they keep up with the news and current affairs). I would expect that parents will attempt to comply - but without the odd, light smack (along with a few harsh words) the headstrong child will continue to misbehave (maybe only to get attention) and the stressed and frazzled parent will snap and end up delivering a smack (or worse) of more force than they would otherwise have dealt at an earlier stage. A parent not being aware of the law will still resort to smacking as they did before. In both cases this could result in being charged for assault, end up with a criminal record and possibly a fine or even jail - which will only make their financial situation even more difficult. So, although some parents from a wealthier background may also find themselves breaking this law, the main burden of it will be to criminalise, and financially harm, those least able to comply - and that means, on the whole, those from the most deprived areas who are already struggling financially. That is why I say that this law was introduced by middle class people who have no understanding of the difficulties of coming from, and living in, a deprived area. It makes the assumption that all parents have the same time to dedicate to their children that they have - or the money to pay for good child care - which is simply not the case. It makes the assumption that all parents who end up with a fine have the resources to afford this - which will not be the case for the poorest parents. This law will hit the least able harder than it will hit the more wealthy. This law also assumes that all parents will have the parenting skills required to avoid smacking - but they don’t. Some don’t for historical reasons, relating to how they were brought up themselves, and others due to their current circumstances and education. This law assumes that all children are the same - but they are not. Most children will comply with the behavioural restrictions placed upon them - but others will resist instruction and continue to push the envelope as far as they can - and then beyond that. Most children are intelligent enough to understand what they are told while others are not so intelligent or, even if they are, decide they need to push the boundaries to see what they can get away with. Those in that latter group require parents with very good parenting skills - but many of those parents of wayward children simply don’t have that. As said above, I fear the burden of this law will fall most heavily on parents from our most deprived areas - and that is why I think it’s a middle class law for the middle class. Falling back, again, on my experience as a taxi driver in Inverclyde, I have to say that many of the poor parenting skills I witnessed came from parents that did not strike me as having the intelligence, or use of language, required to instruct their children without resorting to a smack to control them (or keep them away from doing something potentially dangerous) - and often the child was too young to have developed the language skills to fully comprehend what their parent was telling them to do - and this especially since the parent’s own use of language often left a lot to be desired. Was this due to a lack of basic intelligence or failure of our education system? I don’t know - I only know what I witnessed.

Let us look at the arguments used by both the supporters and the objectors to the amendment that, in effect, bans smacking. The supporters point out that hitting another adult is assault and that children should be afforded the same protection under the law. The objectors point out that that is the difference: Adults are adults and should be able to determine the difference between right and wrong and what is safe and what is not safe while some children have not yet reached such understandings and require guidance and instruction which sometimes requires a smack or some form of physical restraint. The objectors further point out that many animals resort to physical control of their offspring (a lioness, for example, cuffing her cubs when they get too annoying or when they decide to play with a snake which has slithered into their area). The supporters will say that we are not a typical animal and that as humans we have the use of language and greater intelligence which provides us with alternatives other than physical punishment or restraint. The objectors say (and I agree with them, here - see above) that not all human parents have a good enough use of language, and maybe intelligence, to employ such a solution - and that many children, especially the younger ones, do not have a sufficient understanding of language to fully comprehend what they are being told. The supporters claim that resorting to physical restraint only teaches children that force works and therefore encourages them to follow suit. I find that the silliest of arguments. Sure, some particularly badly behaved children will, perhaps, take physical punishment as proof that force works and embark on behaviour which mirrors this - but most will recognise that they do not have this power, that this resides with adults and society and they will seek to avoid physical punishment (although some may well take such a path when they enter adulthood - but that’s going to happen anyway). As explained above, I was often belted at school and my mother often gave me a good spanking (I was often a very naughty boy). If this argument held any water then I should have turned out to be a proper thug employing violence at every opportunity to get my way - but the opposite is the case. I oppose violence in general and try to avoid confrontations which might lead to violence if I can. I also believe that this is a false view of things which can only lead some children to feel that there is no punishment for misbehaviour for them to fear - and that is simply a false view of the world to teach. The use of force in the adult world is rife and I would suggest that children need to learn this just as much as two plus two equals four. If this was not the case why would we have a police force? The police will physically restrain someone breaking the law - maybe even TASER them or shoot them (this more so in some countries than in others). If this was not the case then why do we have armed forces? A countrie's armed forces are equipped with weapons which will kill many of the armed forces of another (sometimes for good reasons but other times only for political gain or to enforce their culture and beliefs on another or to bring it’s land and resources under it’s control). In addition to that, the forces of one country will often kill many of the civilians of another country by bombing it’s cities. In addition to that there is the physical force used against terrorists. Force is also used against populations, by it’s own forces, if they are rioting - or even, sometimes, when employed in peaceful protest. The use of force, by those with power, is a fact of life and teaching children otherwise is not, I would say, the best lesson to teach as it presents a false view of life.

In my research for this blog I read that Sweden was the first country to embark on this liberal approach to child rearing. I also read, however, that this has not been a total success and that violence amongst Swedish youths has increased since the policy was started. I don’t know if this is true or just disinformation spread by the opponents to this policy - but it would not surprise me if it was true. As said above, I believe that most children will respond to alternatives to corporal punishment but I also suspect that there is a minority who will reject any authority - even if this authority is enforced by corporal punishment. This minority, I suspect, makes up the percentage of the population that is going to resort to force and violence no matter what is done to try to prevent this (the future violent percentage of any population who will probably become criminals). However, I also suspect that there is another minority group. This group will be resistant to the alternative methods of control and guidance and that only corporal punishment will prevent them from bad and violent behaviour - if only to avoid such a punishment. Why do I suspect this to be the case? Well, I suspect I might have been in this minority group and that it was only the fear of a smacking, or the belt, which led me, eventually, to realise that there was an authority greater than my own (parents, teachers and the law) that restricted my behaviour until I had learned more sense. I suspect that some of this second minority group, without corporal punishment, will go on to join with the first minority group and end up in a life of crime and violence. If that is the case then I don’t find it surprising that violence in Sweden might have only increased as the numbers of those intent on a criminal lifestyle will have been swollen by some from the second minority group - and this will have led to an increase in violence.  

Summary.
While I am supportive of the belt having been banned by class room teachers I feel this was a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. This has led, I believe, to a vast reduction in low level violence against children but an increase in more serious violence via attacks on teachers or serious bullying by pupils carrying and even using weapons. I believe the belt should have been banned in general but retained for use by only a head teacher, or deputy, as a deterrent. I feel that making a spanking of a misbehaving child illegal (when all else has failed) is also a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water - with the added problem that this is going to impact more on parents from deprived backgrounds than it will for the more wealthy. I believe it would have made more sense to restrict such punishments to the use of only an open hand on the buttocks. This would have removed the use of implements, such as belts and rulers, and still have made it illegal for a child to be hit on any other part of the body (like the face). Physical damage would still have been a criminal offence - but a light smack or two would cause no damage while still making it clear to the child that their actions were unacceptable or dangerous. Perhaps smacking could also have been retained as above but only for a child not yet at school and, therefore, not yet of an age when they are more able to fully understand what they were being told to do and why? It would also help if there was more instruction in schools, say from about twelve onwards, in how to cope with misbehaving children - and maybe classes, too, in anger management? Parents not being able to lightly punish their children, especially the younger ones, will only reduce their ability to guide them in good, and safe, behaviour while doing nothing to prevent the problem of real child abuse which is happening behind closed doors. In the meantime police and court time will be spent dealing with cases of light chastisement, witnessed mainly outdoors, which would be better spent trying to identify and prevent real child abuse.
I applaud the attempt by both changes to improve the treatment of children but I also think that both went too far. The first one (banning the use of corporal punishment in schools) has, as far as I can tell, only increased violence in other ways and totally banning parents (lightly) smacking children will reduce their ability to guide and correct their children’s behaviour and make life even more difficult for many of the parents from our deprived communities.