Excerpt From Real Issues
The smacking debate
The tragic death of 6-year-old Coral Burrows has prompted calls from the Prime Minister, Social Services Minister, Steve Maharey, and the Commissioner for Children to remove Section 59 of the Crimes Act. This section allows parents to use 'reasonable force' when disciplining their children.
But let's be clear: Section 59 does not advocate smacking; it allows for reasonable parental force, which may include smacking. Obviously, responsible parents use a range of measures, and in no way is it a licence to beat children. Moreover, there is a consistent failure among child advocates to see that family dysfunction is a cause of abuse and that smacking and violence are poles apart. There is no evidence that smacking leads to violence, and the law is quite clear about the difference between the two.
When used properly, smacking is a quick correction to bring a child's behaviour back into line; it seeks to restore the parent-child relationship affected by the child's unacceptable behaviour. If done in a context of stable and committed family relationships, it is motivated by love and a commitment to the child's best interests. As children develop, most parents naturally use it less and less.
Abuse, however, is belting, punching, or beating. It is motivated by anger, frustration, revenge or some other volatile desire to 'get back at' the child. Abuse aims to inflict pain, revenge or humiliation. It is often associated with parental neglect, dictatorial control, indulgence and incompetence, and unstable and uncommitted relationships. Making smacking illegal will criminalise responsible parents, but will do nothing to stop abusers.
The smacking debate
The tragic death of 6-year-old Coral Burrows has prompted calls from the Prime Minister, Social Services Minister, Steve Maharey, and the Commissioner for Children to remove Section 59 of the Crimes Act. This section allows parents to use 'reasonable force' when disciplining their children.
But let's be clear: Section 59 does not advocate smacking; it allows for reasonable parental force, which may include smacking. Obviously, responsible parents use a range of measures, and in no way is it a licence to beat children. Moreover, there is a consistent failure among child advocates to see that family dysfunction is a cause of abuse and that smacking and violence are poles apart. There is no evidence that smacking leads to violence, and the law is quite clear about the difference between the two.
When used properly, smacking is a quick correction to bring a child's behaviour back into line; it seeks to restore the parent-child relationship affected by the child's unacceptable behaviour. If done in a context of stable and committed family relationships, it is motivated by love and a commitment to the child's best interests. As children develop, most parents naturally use it less and less.
Abuse, however, is belting, punching, or beating. It is motivated by anger, frustration, revenge or some other volatile desire to 'get back at' the child. Abuse aims to inflict pain, revenge or humiliation. It is often associated with parental neglect, dictatorial control, indulgence and incompetence, and unstable and uncommitted relationships. Making smacking illegal will criminalise responsible parents, but will do nothing to stop abusers.
posted by Scotty at 10:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home