Is there any place in good parenting for smacking a child? Is smacking the same as hitting? Should adults, under any circumstances, be legally entitled to hit a child?
In 2007 New Zealand law was amended to make it a criminal offense to use force on a child, removing the statutory defence of ‘reasonable force’, but gave police discretion to not prosecute in cases where the offense is considered inconsequential.
A citizen’s initiated referendum is purporting to challenge that law change by asking the question, ‘should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence?’
An opinion poll earlier in the week resulted in more than 80% of respondents stating that no, a smack should not be a criminal offense. The results of the referendum are currently being tallied, but both sides of the debate expect the outcome to be a majority of votes of ‘no’.
The trouble with opinion polls and referenda is that the people most likely to respond at the ones who care passionately about the subject matter. So the people that care most about whether or not children should be smacked are the ones that want to smack them, it seems. It also probably means that a lot of other New Zealanders are unsure. Certainly the wording of the referendum question didn’t help make things clear, and both the Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition stated they would not be voting. The question was “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense?” Bit of a conundrum, really, as even answering the question could be seen as accepting that smacking can be part of ‘good’ parental correction.
I don’t understand why, when there is so much scientific research warning of the dangers of using force against children, those in favour of hitting a child trot out the arguments of ‘common sense’. ‘Smacking children is not harmful’, lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson declaimed back in 2006 when the Bill was being debated. She goes on to assert that smacking a 16-year-old who has thrown an axe at a younger sibling, or smacking a 15-year-old who has pushed her mother down the stairs (these incidents are apparently true), is not violence. I confess, the hair on the back of my neck prickled reading these statements. If these are not violent situations, I don’t know what kind of family environment Ms Harrold-Claesson comes from. This is advocating meeting violence with more violence. This is trying to assert control over nearly fully-grown people (how do you smack a 16-year-old?) with aggression. When is smacking not violent?
On the other side of the debate are the results of international research by psychologists and researchers that has consistently shown that smacking leads to “poorer mental health, diminished problem-solving skills, aggressive and delinquent behaviours, and impaired parent-child relationships’. Certainly the relationships described by Ms Harrold-Claesson seem impaired.
Clinging to the belief that use of violence against children can be justified because it is necessary for parental correction is an excuse to avoid moving on to more effective forms of parenting, brought about by a lack of education. There are better way to parent than by hitting your child.
