Smacking Back in the Dock

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) unveiled a report this month, once more calling for the criminalisation of smacking in England and Northern Ireland:

Scotland and Wales have paved the way for the UK to become a more equal society by removing the reasonable chastisement defence from their legislation. Political leaders in England and Northern Ireland now have an opportunity to do the same and to tangibly demonstrate their commitment to championing children’s rights, improve outcomes for children and protect them from harm.

As the law currently stands in England, parents still have recourse to the grounds of ‘reasonable punishment’, which take into account the force and location of the smack, and the child’s age:

While the law allows for smacking as a reasonable punishment, the smack itself cannot cause injury to the child. If the child is left with bruises, cuts or abrasions, then the parent can be deemed to have committed assault.

Naturally, genuine child abuse is already illegal as evidenced by the Children Act of 2004, which clearly states it is ‘unlawful to assault a child causing actual or grievous bodily harm, or cruelty.’

The RCPCH claims to have conducted a review of studies, finding that’ smacking can be damaging to children’s behaviour, health and wellbeing.’ We have, however, heard this all before, and while I do not relish the charge of being an apologist for child cruelty, I confess to having the same reservations I had back in 2022 when Wales outlawed smacking in its entirety:

There were celebrations yesterday as Wales outlawed smacking, or any form of physical punishment for children. This comes hot on the heels of Scotland, who introduced a ban back in 2020. Under the common law defence of ‘reasonable punishment’, smacking, hitting, slapping and shaking were previously permitted for parents, but this will no longer apply. ‘There is no place for physical punishment in a modern Wales’ commented an ebullient First Minister, Mark Drakeford.

The first thing that troubles me about this is that it pleases all the wrong people. The Guardian, which manages to be wrong about practically everything, opined ‘Wales has done the right thing’. The NSPCC, which has failed genuine victims in the past, and seems to be headed for full wokery of late, quipped ‘Until now, children were the only group in society it was acceptable to strike’. And Keir Starmer, who couldn’t make the right call on a double-headed coin, has demanded the ban be extended to England.

It seems such a cast-iron certainty that violence encountered early in life can only lead to violent outcomes later on, and indeed, this seems to be what most research on corporal punishment concludes. The problem is, most research in this area is hampered by the double-whammy of A) failing to differentiate between types of physical punishment, and B) a desperate desire not to advocate child cruelty.

As understandable as this is, an issue of such magnitude deserves proper scrutiny; even if the answers are unpalatable. Moreover, we already have the answers, were we brave enough to grasp them. The groundwork was done almost two decades ago by psychologist Jane Millichamp. Millichamp reviewed the long-term effects of corporal punishment by tracking almost 1,000 children born between 1972-73, and interviewing them as adults over a two-year period.

The crucial element of Millichamp’s study was that she had the wit to distinguish different types of physical punishment. Of the 80% of children who had been physically disciplined, 29% had only been smacked with an open hand, 45% had been smacked with a strap or wooden spoon, and 6% had suffered ‘extreme physical punishment’.

Here is Millichamp in her own words:

Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had similar or even slightly better outcomes than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement… Study members in the ‘smacking only’ category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society… I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids.

Dr Millichamp said there was no doubt that abusive punishments had long-lasting negative consequences, but the research did not support banning mild smacks: ‘It’s unethical to make out that there is a lot of evidence that mild smacking is harmful.’

If the last two years (Covid) have taught us anything, surely it is that the state is spectacularly ill-equipped to be a surrogate parent for anyone, least of all our children. Moreover, alternative forms of behavioural correction are not necessarily innocuous, as Millichamps notes:

Many subjects stated explicitly that methods such as grounding were far worse than any physical punishment received during childhood, (which) suggests that these methods may have aversive qualities in their own right which make them memorable

However well-intended a ban on smacking surely is, it may not have the desired effect. Do we really want households run by tyrannical children, who threaten their parents with the police whenever the question of discipline rears its head? Raising children who believe they are beyond reproach does nothing to prepare them for the harsh realities of life.

As an aside, do the people who write these laws even know any children? Children are often violent to their siblings or even parents, and there comes a point when the naughty step doesn’t cut it.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly the smacking ban illustrates a hopeless naiveté at the heart of government: these laws will do absolutely nothing to prevent genuine child abuse – those who engage in such behaviour are already committing criminal acts. Instead, it displays a fundamental lack of trust in parents; a slap in the face for the vast majority who love their children, a further undermining of the family, and the potential neglect of children, whose errant behaviour is more likely to be overlooked.

Coming back to 2024, I would merely add the following comments:

1. The rather tired cliché that ‘children deserve the same right to protection from assault as adults’ is disingenuous. Of course children deserve protection, but children do not have the same legal standing as adults, precisely becausethey are children. They are not entrusted to make adult decisions until they come of age – and even defer criminal responsibility until the age of ten. Corrective smacking is neither abuse nor assault, and research clearly indicates that children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than children who were not.

2. Just as it is my decision not to physically discipline my own children, that decision (I believe) is also best placed in the hands of other children’s parents, rather than with the nanny state.

3. State-endorsed child cruelty is ubiquitous. I can think of many parents who’d never dream of smacking their children. But they’d certainly inject them with vaccines they don’t need, sign them up to CRT courses that lead to self-loathing, and if they were really naughty, declare them ‘trans’ and chop their Jacobs off.

Each to his own, I suppose.

Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.

If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee - it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!