Arguments against physical punishment of children

Spanking

Children Should Not Be Spanked in Order to Discipline Them for Negative Behavior

Spanking has been used by parents for generations, and various forms of corporal punishment have been deployed for disciplinary measures for centuries. However, the enduring popularity of spanking as a method for disciplining children does not mean that it accomplishes the task it endeavors to achieve. Indeed, spanking has many negative potential consequences that make it an unfavorable method for disciplining children. This paper isolates three negative consequences of spanking, each of which inform the thesis that children should not be spanked in order to discipline children. Specifically, spanking does not actually eradicate the child's mindset that produced the negative behavior. The child may stop performing their negative behavior, but spanking does not facilitate their understanding of the ways in which their behavior is unacceptable. Additionally, spanking is a violent act and so it carries the potential of promoting violence in the child, which may in turn lead to behavior far worse than that which generated the spanking. Finally, spanking can hurt a child's self-esteem; the physical injury incurred from the disciplinary action and the combative dynamic instigated by the disciplining adult can cause fear or distrustfulness in the child. This paper explores these reasons for why spanking should never be used in any circumstance when disciplining children.

Perhaps the greatest reason why spanking should not be used in order to discipline children is that it does not effectively eradicate the mindset of the child that led to the negative behavior. The physical act of spanking does nothing to instruct the child as to why their behavior is unacceptable. While it is true that many parents combine the act of spanking with instruction concerning why the behavior was unacceptable, the actual act of spanking contributes nothing productive in this regard. Spanking may be effective in eliminating the behavior in an isolated situation, but the child does not glean any information as to why their behavior was uncalled for or how to respond to the situation differently. As Cox states, "Hitting children does not make it easier for us to do our social, legal, or moral duty as parents. Hitting them may only offer us a sort of shortcut when speed is a higher priority" (Cox). Indeed, adults have a responsibility to instruct children on how to behave properly, and spanking replaces instruction with violence.

Another reason why children should not be spanked is that it can promote violent behavior in children. Regardless of the intent behind it, spanking is an inherently violent action that inflicts pain on the child. If adults spank children in order to punish them for their behavior, children may in turn exhibit similar violence when dealing with their peers. While it is true that adults almost certainly do not intend to promote violence through spanking, they must remain cognizant of alternate ways in which their actions can influence children, who are particularly impressionable. Indeed, it has been argued that:

"When your child misbehaves or acts in certain ways that are defiant, inappropriate, or even dangerous, you want to show them that this behavior is unacceptable and needs to change. Spanking may seem like a direct and effective way to do that, but it also delivers other messages that you don't want to be sent." (Walters).

Although Walters does not elaborate as to the specific messages, it can be inferred that he refers to the fact that spanking can compel a child to produce violent behavior that is every bit as deviant as the behavior that engendered the spanking. Spanking children must therefore be avoided since it commonly results in unintended violence or other negative consequences.