The ill effects smacking corporal punishment has on children

It was encouraging read the article by Sir Frank Peters headlined “Spare the rod and spoil the child? – Totally bogus!” (Study Informer, 2013.12.18) As the author of the book, The Primordial Violence: Spanking Children, Psychological Development, Violence, and Crime (Routledge, 2013) from which Sir Frank gathered much material for his report, I agree with
all the statements made.

The seriousness of the problem caused by smacking children (corporal punishment) is shown by the scientific evidence in this book.  It is based on large samples from many nations. These studies, and more than 100 others, found that smacking children increased the probability of many things that parents in every nation hope will not happen to their children, including:

·         A weaker bond between parent and child

·         Lower IQ than what it could have been without smacking

·         Antisocial behavior and delinquency

·         Depression

·         Violence and sexual coercion of wives and husbands and dating partners

If this is what so many studies have found, why do few parents realize that smacking children harms children?

First it contradicts what they can see for themselves – that smacking usually stops the misbehavior in the immediate situation.  But parents have no way of seeing the long term effects such as depression and hitting a spouse because they do not show up until months or years later.

Second, like all harmful events, most people who experience them, are not harmed.  For example, although a third of heavy-smokers die of a smoking-related disease, that statistic also means that of heavy smokers 2/3 do not die.  Similarly, only a small percent of solders in combat end up with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Given that only a fraction of those who experience a harmful event like being smacked actually suffer the harms, those who have been smacked a lot can believe it is harmless, especially if, as the case of smacking, their culture says it is sometimes necessary.  What it really means is that they are among the lucky majority who were smacked a lot and not harmed.

Third, among those who do suffer a harmful effect, it does not show up until months or years later.  That makes it even less likely to think that the problem behavior might be connected to having been smacked when they were little.

One additional thing needs to be understood.  Although smacking has only a small probability of harming any one child, it almost certain to harm the nation.  How can this be?  It is because, in most nations almost all children are smacked.  Therefore, the number children who later develop these problems is large, even if only one percent of the children who are smacked have their IQ lowered, are depressed, or hit their spouse.  Therefore, for each million children who are smacked, “only one percent” means 10,000 with lower IQ, depression, or violence against a spouse when they are adults.

From my extensive research on the subject, over a period of four decades, I can categorically state that corporal punishment is not beneficial to a child or society on the whole and I whole heartedly agree with Sir Frank Peters that the sooner it is abolished worldwide in homes and schools, better the nation and the world would be.