Corporal Punishment and Children

¶ … Against Spanking as a Way of Disciplining Children

Spanking is a subject that has sparked controversy for a long time. The debate has been raging in academic circles, among caregivers and psychologists alike. The idea of spanking is blended with cultural views, religious beliefs, laws imposed by government and a myriad of other factors. The practice of spanking has immense effects that are both psychological and physical. The issue of whether spanking is right is still controversial in both lay and professional realms (Kazdin & Benjet, 2003). The argument presented in this paper is to the effect that since spanking is subject to abuse and the fact that the act seems to send a wrong message to children and is likely to lead to a less than ideal relationship between children and their parents, it should be avoided. It should be avoided because it leads children to act out of fear rather than reason.

There is a lot of research that has focused energies on spanking as part of corporal punishment, its negative effects and the extent to which it can be regarded as helpful in changing children's behavior. Corporal punishment is linked to a number of negative adult behaviors. Some of the problems that have been cited include psychological disturbances, physical aggression tendencies, depression and delinquency. Physical punishment seems to teach children that it is acceptable to inflict pain on other people. There is an indication that spanking may be counterproductive. Further, research has shown that spanking triggers aggression in children and a myriad of maladaptive tendencies (Walsh, 2002).

Ideally, corporal punishment amounts to a form of cruelty directed towards children. Indeed, studies show that the act may be the requisite ingredient for creating cruelty in future generations. Such cruelty spans across a range of social malpractices including violent crime, egregious violations of human rights and even terrorism. The recognition of corporal punishment therefore implicates both the well being of children and the future of the human race. Meting corporal punishment on children has, for a long time been considered by those who care to know that it is a violation of the rights of children under international conventions. The global community must have had compelling reasons to have arrived at such a conclusion. Many nations have ratified this convention by instituting prohibitions to protect children against corporal punishment locally. We cannot overstate the essence of such adjudication (Bitensky, 2006).

Spanking carries gratuitous infliction of pain in children and serves no beneficial purpose. In any case, there are other ways of directing children to act in desired ways. Child experts postulate that spanking does not help the cause of trying to lead children to a conscientious recognition of right from wrong and moving towards peaceful conflict resolution. It seems that the only gain from spanking a child is a provisional halting of their transgression because they have been stunned. Yet, the transitory good is laced in a dark cloud as far as behavior change goes because the child is bent on analyzing the bizarreness and outrageousness of the smacking act than on correcting their behavior. Thus, there is a tendency for children to repeat the same mistakes in time. It is therefore accurate to say that spanking children is a temporary solution that either only serves the gratuitous inclination of the care giver, or just gives them respite for a moment and is an opportunity to let off steam and imagine that they are in control (Bitensky, 2006).

I strongly hold that any intentional infliction of pain to anyone; children or otherwise and irrespective of the perpetrator is utterly, ethically repugnant. The source of such misguided acts is irrelevant and does not alter the facts behind it and can never excuse it. We should therefore consider looking at matters from the perspective of the child subjected to such treatment once we recognize that spanking is gratuitous and intentional infliction of pain. We should recognize that the reaction of children to such treatment in similar anguish that many adults feel. Further, corporal punishment implicates the facets of right and wrong because it is unfair to subject children to violent treatment that we consider wrong when it is directed at adults and when adults are protected against such heinous aggression. The outright unfairness of such treatment is brought out most clearly when viewed form a historical perspective. People recorded to have been subjected to legal corporal punishment in history have outstandingly been slaves or simply in oppression of untold proportions (Bitensky, 2006).

Several outrageous adverse outcomes suffice among children when they are spanked. Firstly, it is documented that there is a link between corporal punishment to children and the resulting violence that manifests in their adulthood. It is thought by experts that such eventualities are reminiscent of the modeling that children get when adults show aggression towards children. It gets even worse because in some cases, some adults are said to have lost their capacity to empathize as a result of being subjected to corporal punishment when they were children. Such is a dangerous recipe for people harming others with no compunction. The aggression does not always wait until adulthood. The correlation of spanking also leads to an observation that children subjected to corporal punishment are likely to turn their lack of empathy towards animals and consequently victimize them. They may do the same to other children and adults too (Bitensky, 2006).

Spanking has been associated with reduced acknowledgement of morals. The quality of relations between parents and children is observed to significantly reduce. Worse, poor mental health for both children and adults exposed to corporal punishment is evident. Other problems associated with the practice include increased likelihood of engaging in antisocial behavior, for both children and adults when such children come of age. The likelihood of abusing a child including one's own, a spouse or even becoming a victim of abuse is increased (Kazdin & Benjet, 2003).

Findings from a meta-analysis by a research team reveals that spanking indicates that out of the 17 negative outcomes they observed such as increased aggression, decreased cognitive abilities and low self-esteem, spanking was responsible for 13 of them. There is yet a broader body of research that indicates that parents who apply spanking on their children are likely to use worse forms in time (Moyer, 2016).

It has also been observed that parents who spank their children share less social activity with their children. They are said to hug less, read to and with their children less and cuddle less. They are reported to experience higher stress levels and lead more discordant lives. The likelihood to become mentally ill or abuse drugs is also higher among such parents (Kazdin & Benjet, 2003).

More studies have indicated that children who were subjected to spanking were more anxious, aggressive and showed signs of stress higher than those who were not spanked. Lab experiments on animals have produced corroborating evidence; that corporal punishment often produces undesired results. It has been observed that corporal punishment leads to exertion of biochemical reactions in the brain and triggers changes in structural and functional domains. For example, it leads to increased cerebral volumes and weakens responses to neurotransmission signals. More importantly, it has been pointed out that some of the changes mentioned exhibit concomitants of psychological nature. There are observable changes in reacting to working memory and stress (Kazdin & Benjet, 2003).

Conversely, the views that support corporal punishment are the usual, incomplete, rather cryptic and possibly misconstrued religious version. The quotation to the effect: "spare the rod, spoil the child" (Proverbs 13:24) from the bible is a common one that advocates of spanking commonly refer to. The view captures the possible results of failing to correct a child by punishing them through spanking. Research shows that punishment triggered instant compliance by the child. This happens to be the only positive outcome from corporal punishment; its side effects notwithstanding. It is argued that mild punishment is a back up for other correctional strategies including reinforcement removal or reasoning. They argue that mild punishment is not injurious. They say that an open hand used to strike the extremities inflicts negligible and temporary pain (Kazdin & Benjet, 2003).

There is a host of alternative non-violent corrective measures that can be applied by both parents and school teachers. Schools still have access to the traditional non-disciplinary forms including suspensions, enlisting of psychologists as resident counselors in schools, and parent pick-ups. Handing out of student recognition awards, spreading report cards based on a student's behavior, entering contracts with children for discipline routines and better modes of conduct and engaging peer mediation are other less austere alternatives to corporal punishment (Bitensky, 2006).

At home, it is possible to reduce unwanted behavior and encourage positive change by applying reinforcement strategies. Other options include small fines put on a pint chart and time out from reinforcement (Kazdin & Benjet, 2003).