social work
carito30
BANSAGAINSTCORPORALPUNISHMENT.pdf
Bans against Corporal Punishment: A Systematic Review of the Laws, Changes in Attitudes and Behaviours
Adam J. Zolotor* Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Megan E. Puzia College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Twenty-four countries have passed legislative bans on corporal punishment since the passage of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This systematic review briefly reviews the arguments for corporal punishment bans and the contents and context of the current legal bans. All such bans have occurred in representative governments. Following this background, the paper will examine the impacts of the laws with regard to attitudes regarding corporal punishment and parental discipline behaviours. It is clear from the findings of this systematic review that legal bans on corporal punishment are closely associated with decreases in support of and use of corporal punishment as a child discipline technique. However, it is less clear if such legislative bans always generally precede a decline in popular support for corporal punishment or result from such a decline in popular support. The known impact of such bans on child physical abuse will then be reviewed. The paper concludes with a policy analysis framework for considering new legislation to ban corporal punishment. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: child abuse; corporal punishment; social policy
Corporal punishment of children is pervasive around theworld. Since 1979, 24 countries have enacted legislation to ban corporal punishment in the home (Center for Effective Dis- cipline, 2009). This is in contrast to the 192 countries which have ratified the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (UNICEF, 2006). The original language of the CRC was not explicit regarding corporal punishment, but generally advocated to protect children from ‘all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse’ (UNICEF, 2001, Article 19).
* Correspondence to: Adam Zolotor, Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB #7595, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7595, USA. E-mail ajzolo@ med.unc.edu
‘Legal bans on corporal punishment are closely associated with decreases in support of and use of corporal punishment’
‘Since 1979, 24 countries have enacted legislation to ban corporal punishment in the home’
Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted: 21 April 2010
Subsequent CRC committee opinions have clarified this position. ‘Addressing widespread acceptance of corporal punishment and eliminating it is an obligation of States and a key strategy in reducing all forms of violence’ (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006, p. 3). The lack of explicit language against corporal punishment ‘cannot be used to justify such practices, including corporal punishment’ (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006, p. 3). Still, legal prohibitions against corporal punishment are in effect in only 12 per cent of countries.
Corporal punishment includes any use of physical punishment against a child in response to misbehaviour. This most commonly takes the form of spanking or smacking, but also may include slapping, pinching, pulling hair, twisting ears, or hitting with an object such as a rod or stick. There are few multi-national com- parative studies by which to judge various rates of corporal pun- ishment. One exception to this is provided by the WorldSAFE studies including six national or multi-city representative samples (Runyan et al., in press). These found that spanking by a mother or her partner on a specific child in the last year varied from 16 per cent of children in non-slum New Delhi to 76 per cent of children in the Philippines. Of the common types of corporal punishment, spanking on the buttocks is most common in the US (44%), Philippines (76%), Chile (53%) and Brazil (55%). Different forms of punishment were common in Egypt (slapping on the face 42%, shaking 68%, pinching 45% and ear twisting 29%) (Runyan et al., 2010).
Arguments against the use of corporal punishment are most often advanced on two fronts. Corporal punishment has been shown to have deleterious associations in childhood and adult- hood. A systematic review by Gershoff (2002) of over 300 studies on corporal punishment demonstrated increases in childhood moral internalisation, aggression, delinquent behaviour, antisocial behaviour, decreased quality of parent-child relationship, more negative behavioural symptoms, and higher rates of physical abuse victimisation by the child. In addition, corporal punishment is associated with adult aggression, criminal and antisocial behav- iour, poorer health, and abuse of one’s own child and spouse (Gershoff, 2002). A recent paper demonstrated that corporal pun- ishment frequency and severity are associated with abusive acts (Zolotor et al., 2008). Other work has suggested an association between corporal punishment and sub-optimal development (Berlin et al., 2009; Straus and Paschall, 2009). Corporal punish- ment has, however, been shown to improve immediate compliance (Gershoff, 2002; Larzelere and Kuhn, 2005).
Corporal punishment is also a human rights issue. Briefly stated, in most civil societies, it is illegal to strike an adult. Such use of force is considered a violation of human rights. The state of
‘The lack of explicit language against corporal punishment “cannot be used to justify such practices”’
‘Of the common types of corporal punishment, spanking on the buttocks is most common in the US’
‘An association between corporal punishment and sub-optimal development’
Zolotor and Puzia230
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
childhood should confer, if anything, special rights, not the abdi- cation of rights (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2001; Fiji Court of Appeal, 2002).
Those who argue that parents have a right, and even obligation, to discipline a child with corporal punishment critique the body of literature reviewed by Gershoff (2002) as systematically biased (Baumrind et al., 2002; Larzelere, 2008). Literature on discipline will always be limited to observational methods. Those who condone or encourage corporal punishment are generally con- sistent in advocating for limited force, discipline as a teaching method and not in anger, and discipline which is clearly and immediately linked to a specific child misbehaviour (Focus on the Family; Stein and Perrin, 1998). There is little scientific informa- tion on the qualities of actual corporal punishment that parents use such as force, intent, forethought and anger. Many believe that corporal punishment bans are an intrusion into the family which violates an individual’s autonomy.
This paper will consider first the legal context of legislative bans on corporal punishment in the 24 countries where such bans currently exist. Subsequent to the review of the laws, changes in attitudes, behaviours and known physical abuse will be considered in the context of these legal reforms.
Methods
Countries that currently have legal bans on corporal punishment were identified online (Global Initiative to All End Corporal Punishment of Children, 2001a). Using this information, electronic searches were conducted via Google and government websites of the countries to obtain full legislative texts. In the event that translated versions of these texts were unavailable, texts were translated automatically by several online translation sites (www.babelfish.com, http://free-translation.imtranslator.net, www.stars21.com/translator, www.translate.google.com, http:// translation.babylon.com, http://translation2.paralink.com) and the most coherent translation was chosen. Searches were performed in PsychINFO and PubMed to identify articles containing empirical information about the prevalence and attitudes toward corporal punishment or child physical abuse. The reference lists of all relevant articles were also checked to identify missed studies. The following search strategy was used and adapted for each country with a legal ban on corporal punishment:
1. Sweden and child abuse 2. Sweden and physical abuse 3. Sweden and corporal punishment
‘Literature on discipline will always be limited to observational methods’
‘Countries that currently have legal bans on corporal punishment were identified online’
Bans Against Corporal Punishment 231
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
4. Sweden and physical punishment 5. Sweden and spanking
Studies written in English that contained empirical data on the incidence of corporal punishment or child physical abuse, atti- tudes regarding corporal punishment or child physical abuse, or reviews that summarised unpublished, untranslated, or otherwise unavailable data were selected for full review. Non-English lan- guage articles were excluded. The abstract of each study was reviewed by both authors for inclusion or exclusion. The studies had to have a population-based sampling strategy (not necessarily national) and an appropriate comparison group which could be either historical or geographic.
Results
Summary of Laws
There are several important generalisations regarding these leg- islative actions, their context and punishments (Table 1). First, 19 of 24 countries with legislative bans on corporal punishment are in Europe, with three others in Central or South America, one in the Middle East and one in Oceania. There are no bans on cor- poral punishment in Asia or North America. All Scandinavian and near Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland) have corporal punishment bans and were among the first countries to adopt such legislation. Two-thirds of all bans have been enacted since 2000, marking an acceleration in such legislation since 2000. There was only one ban enacted in 2008 and one in 2009, possibly reflecting a decrease in the rate of new laws. All of the countries with corporal punishment bans have elected or representative forms of government. Not a single communist country, dictatorship, or sole monarchy has enacted such legislation.
There are many common threads in the laws and penalties. All but two laws mention prison as a possible consequence of corporal punishment. Most cite short maximum terms, but usually incarceration is an option presented among other pun- ishments which include fines and community service. There are six countries which list prison terms as the only available pun- ishment; however, all but two of these include specific content that allows no prosecution or sentencing for minor or inconse- quential corporal punishment. Only two countries make refer- ence in the law to limitations in parental authority (Greece and Latvia). Only one country (Croatia) states that the cases shall be referred to social services for examination. Bans on corporal
‘The abstract of each study was reviewed by both authors for inclusion or exclusion’
‘19 of 24 countries with legislative bans on corporal punishment are in Europe’
‘All but two laws mention prison as a possible consequence of corporal punishment’
Zolotor and Puzia232
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
T ab
le 1.
S u
m m
ar ie
s o
f n
at io
n al
le g
is la
ti ve
b an
s o
n co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
C o
u n
tr y
Y ea
r P
en al
ty L
eg is
la ti
o n
Ty p
e o
f g
ov er
n m
en t
A u
st ri
a* 1
9 8
9 U
p to
1 ye
ar in
p ri
so n
o r
fi n
e. A
m en
d m
en t
o f
C iv
il C
o d
e ‘u
se o
f fo
rc e
. .
. in
ad m
is si
bl e’
F ed
er al
p ar
li am
en ta
ry re
p u
bl ic
B u lg
ar ia
2 0 0 0
U p
to 3
ye ar
s fo
r li
g h t
b o d il
y h ar
m N
ew la
w ,
C h il
d P
ro te
ct io
n A
ct .
‘E ve
ry ch
il d
h as
a ri
g h t
to p
ro te
ct io
n .
. .
. ag
ai n st
p hy
si ca
l .
. .
v io
le n
ce ’
P ar
li am
en ta
ry d
em o
cr ac
y
C o
st a
R ic
a* 2
0 0
8 M
ay in
cl u
d e
im p
ri so
n m
en t
N ew
ar ti
cl e
to co
d e
o n
ch il
d re
n A
m en
d m
en t
to fa
m il
y co
d e
D em
o cr
at ic
re p
u bl
ic
C ro
at ia
* 1
9 9
9 N
o ti
ce o
f su
ch ca
se s
sh al
l by
ex am
in ed
by th
e C
en te
r fo
r S
o ci
al W
el fa
re A
m en
d m
en t
to fa
m il
y co
d e.
‘M ay
n o
t su
b je
ct th
e ch
il d
to .
. .
p hy
si ca
l v
io le
n ce
’ P
ar li
am en
ta ry
re p
u bl
ic
C y
p ru
s 1
9 9
4 Im
p ri
so n
m en
t, fi
n e,
o r
p ro
b at
io n
N ew
la w
w it
h am
en d
m en
t d
ec la
re s
u n
la w
fu l
‘a ny
ac t
o f
v io
le n
ce (b
et w
ee n
fa m
il y
m em
b er
s) w
h ic
h re
su lt
s in
p hy
si ca
l, se
x u
al ,
o r
p sy
ch o
lo g
ic al
in ju
ry ’
P ar
li am
en ta
ry re
p u
bl ic
D en
m ar
k 1
9 9
7 P
ri so
n fo
r u
p to
2 ye
ar s,
in ex
te n
u at
in g
ci rc
u m
st an
ce s,
si m
p le
d et
en ti
o n
o r
fi n
e A
m en
d m
en t
to th
e p
ar en
ta l
cu st
o d
y an
d ca
re ac
t. ‘C
h il
d re
n .
. .
m u st
n o
t b
e ex
p o
se d
to co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t’
P ar
li am
en ta
ry d
em o
cr ac
y an
d co
n st
it u
ti o
n al
m o
n ar
ch y
F in
la n
d 1
9 8
3 F
in e
o r
p ri
so n
fo r
u p
to 2
ye ar
s N
ew la
w ,
ch il
d C
u st
o d
y an
d R
ig h
t o
f A
cc es
s A
ct .
‘H e
(t h
e ch
il d
) sh
al l
n o
t b
e co
rp o
ra ll
y p
u n
is h
ed ’
S em
i- p
re si
d en
ti al
re p
u bl
ic
G er
m an
y *
2 0
0 0
F in
e o
r u
p to
1 ye
ar in
p ri
so n
. O
n ly
p ro
se cu
te d
u p
o n
co m
p la
in t
A m
en d
m en
t to
C iv
il C
o d
e. P
hy si
ca l
p u
n is
h m
en ts
ar e
in ad
m is
si bl
e F
ed er
al p
ar li
am en
ta ry
re p
u bl
ic
G re
ec e*
2 0
0 6
M ay
o rd
er an
y ap
p ro
p ri
at e
m ea
su re
, in
cl u
d in
g re
st ri
ct in
g (w
h o
ll y
o r
p ar
ti al
ly )
p ar
en ta
l ca
re N
ew la
w p ro
h ib
it s
‘p hy
si ca
l v io
le n ce
ag ai
n st
a m
in o
r .
. .
in th
e co
n te
x t
o f
u p
b ri
n g
in g
’ P
ar li
am en
ta ry
re p
u bl
ic
H u n g ar
y *
2 0 0 5
F el
o ny
im p ri
so n m
en t
fo r
u p
to 3
ye ar
s A
m en
d m
en t
to ac
t o n
th e
ch il
d re
n .
‘T h e
ch il
d ca
n n o t
b e
su b
je ct
to .
. .
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t’ P
ar li
am en
ta ry
re p
u bl
ic
Ic el
an d
2 0
0 3
F in
es o
r im
p ri
so n
m en
t fo
r u
p to
3 ye
ar s
N ew
la w
. T
h e
ch il
d m
ay n
o t
b e
su b
je ct
to p
hy si
ca l
p u
n is
h m
en t
P ar
li am
en ta
ry re
p u
bl ic
Is ra
el 2
0 0
0 P
ar ti
cu la
r te
st ca
se ,
3 ye
ar s
in p
ri so
n S
u p
re m
e C
o u
rt ru
li n
g .
‘C o
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
is .
. .
. en
ti re
ly im
p er
m is
si bl
e’ R
ep u
bl ic
u n
d er
P ar
li am
en ta
ry d
em o
cr ac
y
L at
v ia
1 9
9 8
C iv
il la
w :
L im
it at
io n
o f
p ar
en ta
l w
is h
es .
In th
e ca
se o
f v
io le
n ce
, p
ro v
is io
n o
f ex
tr a-
fa m
il ia
l ca
re C
ri m
in al
la w
: In
te n
ti o
n al
sl ig
h t
b o
d il
y in
ju ry
, u
p to
3 ye
ar s
in p
ri so
n ,
cu st
o d
ia l
ar re
st ,
co m
m u
n it
y se
rv ic
e, o r
fi n e
N ew
la w
, P
ro te
ct io
n o
f th
e R
ig h
ts o
f th
e C
h il
d .
‘S h
al l
n o t
b e
. .
. p
hy si
ca ll
y p
u n
is h
ed ’
P ar
li am
en ta
ry re
p u
bl ic
N et
h er
la n
d s*
2 0
0 7
U p
to 3
ye ar
s in
p ri
so n
o r
fi n
e A
m en
d m
en t
to C
iv il
C o
d e.
‘P ar
en ts
w il
l n
o t
u se
v io
le n
ce ’
P ar
li am
en ta
ry d
em o
cr ac
y an
d co
n st
it u
ti o
n al
m o
n ar
ch y
Bans Against Corporal Punishment 233
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
T ab
le 1.
(C o
n ti
n u
ed )
C o
u n
tr y
Y ea
r P
en al
ty L
eg is
la ti
o n
Ty p
e o
f g
ov er
n m
en t
N ew
Z ea
la n
d 2
0 0
7 Im
p ri
so n
m en
t fo
r u
p to
2 ye
ar s,
ex cl
u si
o n
fo r
‘i n
co n
se q
u en
ti al
’ fo
rc e
A m
en d
m en
t to
th e
C ri
m es
A ct
. N
o th
in g
‘j u
st ifi
es th
e u
se o
f fo
rc e
fo r
th e
p u
rp o
se s
o f
co rr
ec ti
o n
’ P
ar li
am en
ta ry
d em
o cr
ac y
an d
co n
st it
u ti
o n
al m
o n
ar ch
y
N o
rw ay
1 9
8 7
C iv
il p
en al
co d
e, fi
n e,
o r
p ri
so n
fo r
u p
to 6
m o
n th
s A
m en
d m
en t
to T
h e
C h
il d
re n
A ct
. ‘T
h e
ch il
d m
u st
n o
t b
e su
b je
ct ed
to v
io le
n ce
’ P
ar li
am en
ta ry
d em
o cr
ac y
u n d er
co n
st it
u ti
o n
al m
o n
ar ch
y
P o
rt u g al
* 2 0 0 7
C o n fi
n em
en t
o f
1 – 5
ye ar
s A
m en
d m
en t
to th
e P
en al
C o d e,
in cl
u d es
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t as
p hy
si ca
l m
al tr
ea tm
en t
P ar
li am
en ta
ry re
p u
bl ic
S p
ai n
* 2
0 0
7 6 -1
2 m
o n
th s
in p
ri so
n o
r 3
1 –
8 0
d ay
s o
f co
m m
u n
it y
se rv
ic e
A m
en d
m en
t to
C iv
il C
o d
e C
o n
st it
u ti
o n
al m
o n
ar ch
y
S w
ed en
* 1
9 7
9 P
et ty
cr im
e, fi
n e
o r
u p
to 6
m o
n th
s in
p ri
so n
. N
o t
p ro
se cu
te d
u n
le ss
th e
cr im
e is
se ri
o u
s in
n at
u re
re p
o rt
ed by
th e
in ju
re d
A m
en d
m en
t to
th e
C h
il d
re n
an d
P ar
en ts
C o
d e.
‘C h
il d
re n
. .
. m
ay n
o t
b e
su b
je ct
ed to
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t.’ C
o n
st it
u ti
o n
, ‘A
ll ci
ti ze
n s
sh al
l b
e p ro
te ct
ed ag
ai n st
co rp
o ra
l p u n is
h m
en t’
P ar
li am
en ta
ry d
em o
cr ac
y an
d co
n st
it u
ti o
n al
m o
n ar
ch y
R ep
u bl
ic o
f M
o ld
ov a*
2 0
0 8
R eq
u ir
es b
o d
il y
h ar
m ,
m ay
ra n
g e
fr o
m a
sm al
l fi
n e
to 6
-1 2
ye ar
s in
p ri
so n
A m
en d
m en
t to
th e
F am
il y
C o
d e
P ar
li am
en ta
ry d
em o
cr ac
y
R o
m an
ia 2
0 0
4 6 -1
2 m
o n
th s
in p
ri so
n o
r fi
n e
N ew
la w
. ‘C
h il
d .
. .
. m
ay n
o t
b e
su b
je ct
to p
hy si
ca l
p u
n is
h m
en ts
’ U
n it
ar y
se m
i- p
re si
d en
ti al
re p
u bl
ic
U ru
g u ay
* 2
0 0 7
3 -1
2 m
o n
th s
in p
ri so
n ,
re q
u ir
es in
ju ry
A p
ro h
ib it
io n
o f
p hy
si ca
l p
u n
is h
m en
t w
as in
co rp
o ra
te d
in to
th e
co d
e o
f ch
il d
h o
o d
. D
em o
cr at
ic re
p u
bl ic
V en
ez u
el a*
2 0
0 7
3 -1
2 m
o n
th s
in p
ri so
n N
ew ar
ti cl
e to
th e
la w
fo r
th e
p ro
te ct
io n
o f
ch il
d re
n F
ed er
al re
p u
bl ic
U k
ra in
e 2
0 0
4 F
in e,
co m
m u
n it
y se
rv ic
e, o
r co
rr ec
ti o
n al
la b
o u
r A
m en
d m
en t
to th
e fa
m il
y co
d e.
‘P hy
si ca
l p
u n
is h
m en
t. .
. .
ar e
p ro
h ib
it ed
’ U
n it
ar y
se m
i- p
re si
d en
ti al
re p
u bl
ic
* In
d ic
at es
th e
u se
o f
an o
n li
n e
tr an
sl at
io n
se rv
ic e.
A u
st ri
a (1
9 8
9 )
Y o
u th
W el
fa re
A ct
1 9
8 9
, S
ec ti
o n
2 (h
tt p
:/ /w
w w
.s al
zb u
rg .g
v. at
/t h
em en
/g s/
so zi
al es
/s o
zi al
es _
re ch
t/ re
ch t_
ju g en
d w
o h lf
ah rt
sg es
et z.
h tm
[1 9
O ct
o b er
2 0 0 9 ])
; B
u lg
ar ia
(2 0 0 0 )
C h il
d P
ro te
ct io
n A
ct 2 0 0 0 ,
A rt
ic le
1 1 .2
(h tt
p :/
/c is
-s ac
p .g
ov er
n m
en t.
b g /s
ac p /C
IS /c
o n
te n
t_ en
/l aw
/i te
m 0
3 .h
tm [1
9 O
ct o
b er
2 0
0 9
]) ;
C o
st a
R ic
a (2
0 0
8 );
C ro
at ia
(1 9
9 9
); C
y p
ru s
(1 9
9 4
); D
en m
ar k
(1 9
9 7
) T
h e
D an
is h
A ct
o n
P ar
en ta
l R
es p
o n
si b
il it
y 1
9 9
7 ,
S ec
ti o
n 2
(2 )
(h tt
p :/
/w w
w .f
am il
ie st
y re
ls en
.d k
/fi le
ad m
in /F
il er
/ P
D F
/D an
is h
_ A
ct _
o n
_ P
ar en
ta l_
R es
p o
n si
b il
it y.
p d
f [1
9 O
ct o
b er
2 0
0 9
]) ;
F in
la n
d (1
9 8
3 )
C u
st o
d y
an d
R ig
h t
o f
A cc
es s
A ct
1 9
8 3
, S
ec ti
o n
1 –
3 (h
tt p
:/ /7
4 .1
2 5
.4 7
.1 3
2 /s
ea rc
h ?q
= ca
ch e:
ex Q
lD O
8 u
p Y
M J:
w w
w .l
aw .y
al e.
ed u
/R C
W /r
cw /j
u ri
sd ic
ti o
n s/
eu ro
n /fi
n la
n d
/ F
in _
C h
_ C
u st
_ A
ct _
E n
g .d
o c+
T h
e+ C
h il
d +
C u
st o
d y
+ an
d +
R ig
h t+
o f+
A cc
es s+
D ec
re e+
1 9
8 3
& cd
= 3
& h
l= en
& ct
= cl
n k
& g
l= u
s [1
9 O
ct o
b er
2 0
0 9
]) ;
G er
m an
y (2
0 0
0 );
G re
ec e
(2 0 0 6 );
H u n g ar
y (2
0 0
5 )
A ct
o n
th e
P ro
te ct
io n
o f
C h
il d
re n
an d
G u
ar d
ia n
sh ip
A d
m in
is tr
at io
n 2
0 0
5 ,A
rt ic
le 6
, p
ar ag
ra p
h 5
(h tt
p :/
/v cs
g k
.b at
ta n
et .h
u /g
y v
t. p
d f
[1 9
O ct
o b
er 2
0 0
9 ])
; Ic
el an
d (2
0 0
3 )
L aw
7 6
/2 0
0 3
A ct
in R
es p
ec t
o f
C h
il d
re n
2 0
0 3
,A rt
ic le
2 8
(h tt
p :/
/e n
g .d
o m
sm al
ar ad
u n
ey ti
.i s/
la w
s- an
d -r
eg u
la ti
o n
s/ n
r/ 9
1 6
[1 9
O ct
o b
er 2
0 0
9 ])
; Is
ra el
(2 0
0 0
); L
at v
ia (1
9 9
8 );
N et
h er
la n
d s
(2 0
0 7
); N
ew Z
ea la
n d
(2 0
0 7
) C
ri m
es A
ct 2
0 0
7 , S
ec ti
o n
5 9
(h tt
p :/
/w w
w .l
eg is
la ti
o n
.g ov
t. n
z/ ac
t/ p
u bl
ic /1
9 6
1 /0
0 4
3 /l
at es
t/ D
L M
3 2
8 2
9 1
.h tm
l# D
L M
3 2
8 2
9 1
[1 9
O ct
o b
er 2
0 0
9 ])
; N
o rw
ay (1
9 8
7 )
T h
e C
h il
d re
n A
ct 1
9 8
7 ,
S ec
ti o n
3 0
(h tt
p :/
/w w
w .r
eg je
ri n g en
.n o /e
n /d
o c/
L aw
s/ A
ct s/
th e-
ch il
d re
n -a
ct .h
tm l?
id =
4 4 8 3 8 9
[1 9
O ct
o b er
2 0 0 9 ])
; P
o rt
u g al
(2 0 0 7 );
R ep
u bl
ic o f
M o
ld ov
a (2
0 0
8 );
R o
m an
ia (2
0 0
4 );
S p
ai n
(2 0
0 7
); S
w ed
en (1
9 7
9 );
U k
ra in
e (2
0 0
4 )
P re
ve n
ti o
n o
f D
o m
es ti
c V
io le
n ce
A ct
2 0
0 4
(h tt
p :/
/w w
w .s
to p
va w
.o rg
/U k
ra in
e. h
tm l
[1 9
O ct
o b
er 2
0 0
9 ])
; U
ru g
u ay
(2 0
0 7
); V
en ez
u el
a (2
0 0
7 ).
Zolotor and Puzia234
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
punishment are based on new laws in nine instances, amend- ments to existing laws in 14 instances and judicial interpretation in one instance.
Attitudes
According to national opinion polls, public support for corporal punishment has been declining in Sweden for some time. In 1965, 53 per cent of Swedish adults indicated that they sup- ported the use of corporal punishment. This number declined in years following and was only 11 per cent in 1994 (Durrant, 1999; Sweden, 2005). Recent sentiment remains essentially unchanged (Janson, 2001). Results from a 1981 study suggest that Swedish attitudes condoning corporal punishment have decreased dramatically following the legislative ban (Ziegert, 1983). Changing attitudes towards corporal punishment started years before 1979 (the year corporal punishment was banned) and there is no evidence of causality in the change of attitudes due to the ban (Roberts, 2000).
Among Swedish students, attitudes towards corporal punish- ment were found to be related to immigrant status. Only 5 per cent of students native to Sweden and 6 per cent who had emigrated to Sweden before 1985 supported the use of corporal punishment. Among later immigrants of the same age, 12.5 per cent reported such attitudes (Durrant, 1999). Growing up in Sweden after cor- poral punishment was made illegal is associated with less support for corporal punishment.
In the Netherlands, there is some evidence of decreasing public support for corporal punishment that predates the ban on corporal punishment of 2007, according to an analysis of judicial case reports on child abuse. In earlier reports, parents talk candidly about severe physical punishments used to discipline their chil- dren. More recent cases examined show perpetrators noticeably less forthcoming about severe abuses and more aware of public attitudes of disapproval towards violence in childrearing (Komen, 2003). Table 2 allows a comparison of the research exploring changes in beliefs and attitudes by country.
There is some evidence of decline in the prevalence of beliefs that physical discipline benefits children. In 2001, one year after the law prohibiting corporal punishment was passed in Germany, interviews conducted with 3000 parents of children under the age of 18 revealed small decreases in attitudinal measures of accep- tance of corporal punishment compared to identical interviews (n = 2000) conducted in 1996 (Bussmann, 2004).
One study of mothers of young children that compared 102 Swedish (corporal punishment illegal) and 107 Canadian (cor- poral punishment legal) mothers’ attitudes toward corporal
‘Swedish attitudes condoning corporal punishment have decreased dramatically following the legislative ban’
‘In earlier reports, parents talk candidly about severe physical punishments’
‘Small decreases in attitudinal measures of acceptance of corporal punishment’
Bans Against Corporal Punishment 235
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
T ab
le 2.
S u
m m
ar y
o f
st u
d ie
s ci
te d
re p
o rt
in g
ch an
g es
in at
ti tu
d es
o r
b eh
av io
u rs
u si
n g
ei th
er a
h is
to ri
ca l
o r
g eo
g ra
p h
ic co
m p
ar is
o n
C o
u n
tr y
C o
m p
ar is
o n
A u
th o
r/ A
g en
cy (y
ea r)
Y ea
rs F
in d
in g
s
B u lg
ar ia
H is
to ri
ca l
C h il
d P
ro te
ct io
n S
ta te
A g en
cy (2
0 0 5 )
2 0 0 1 – 2 0 0 3
N o
ch an
g es
in th
e n u m
b er
o f
ca se
s o f
v io
le n ce
ag ai
n st
ch il
d re
n
N at
io n
al S
ta ti
st ic
al In
st it
u te
(2 0
0 4
) 2
0 0
3 –
2 0
0 4
S aj
ko w
sk a
(2 0
0 7
) 2
0 0
5 –
2 0
0 6
H ig
h er
n u
m b
er in
d ic
at es
ap p
ro p
ri at
en es
s o
f co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
b an
s
L ow
er es
ti m
at ed
p re
va le
n ce
o f
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t, fe
w er
en co
u n
te re
d ca
se s
o f
ch il
d ab
u se
re p
o rt
ed by
te ac
h er
s
L it
tl e
as so
ci at
io n
b et
w ee
n co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
b an
s an
d g
en er
al v
ie w
s o
n ch
il d
re ar
in g
S aj
ko w
sk a
(2 0
0 7
) 2
0 0
5 –
2 0
0 6
L it
tl e
as so
ci at
io n
b et
w ee
n co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
b an
s an
d es
ti m
at ed
p re
va le
n ce
o f
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t, o
r at
ti tu
d es
to w
ar d
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t as
a d is
ci p
li n
ar y
m et
h o
d
C ro
at ia
H is
to ri
ca l
M in
is tr
y o
f H
ea lt
h an
d S
o ci
al W
el fa
re (2
0 0 5 )
2 0 0 1 – 2 0 0 3
In cr
ea se
s in
th e
n u m
b er
o f
re p o rt
ed ca
se s
o f
v io
le n ce
ag ai
n st
ch il
d re
n
D en
m ar
k H
is to
ri ca
l D
an is
h M
in is
tr y
o f
Ju st
ic e
(2 0 0 5 )
2 0 0 1 – 2 0 0 3
In cr
ea se
s in
th e
n u m
b er
o f
re p o rt
ed ca
se s
o f
v io
le n ce
ag ai
n st
ch il
d re
n
F in
la n d
H is
to ri
ca l
T h e
N at
io n al
R es
ea rc
h In
st it
u te
o f
L eg
al P
o li
cy (2
0 0 5 )
2 0 0 0 – 2 0 0 3
In cr
ea se
s in
th e
n u m
b er
o f
re p o rt
ed ca
se s
o f
v io
le n ce
ag ai
n st
ch il
d re
n
G er
m an
y H
is to
ri ca
l B
u ss
m an
n (2
0 0
4 )
1 9
9 2
, 2
0 0
2 L
ow er
re p
o rt
ed p
re va
le n
ce o
f co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
B u
ss m
an n
(2 0
0 4
) 1
9 9
6 ,
2 0
0 1
D ec
li n
es in
th e
en d
o rs
em en
t th
at co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
b en
efi ts
ch il
d re
n ,
th e
th re
sh o
ld fo
r b
eh av
io u
rs co
n si
d er
ed ‘v
io le
n t’
an d
lo w
er re
p o
rt ed
p re
va le
n ce
o f
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t
G eo
g ra
p h
ic S
aj ko
w sk
a (2
0 0
7 )
2 0
0 5
– 2
0 0
6 H
ig h
er n
u m
b er
in d
ic at
es th
e ap
p ro
p ri
at en
es s
o f
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t b
an s
L ow
er es
ti m
at ed
p re
va le
n ce
o f
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t, fe
w er
en co
u n
te re
d ca
se s
o f
ch il
d ab
u se
by te
ac h
er s
L it
tl e
as so
ci at
io n
b et
w ee
n co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
b an
s an
d g
en er
al v
ie w
s o
n ch
il d
re ar
in g
S aj
ko w
sk a
(2 0
0 7
) 2
0 0
5 –
2 0
0 6
L it
tl e
as so
ci at
io n
b et
w ee
n co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
b an
s an
d es
ti m
at ed
p re
va le
n ce
o f
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t, o
r at
ti tu
d es
to w
ar d
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t as
a d is
ci p
li n
ar y
m et
h o
d
N et
h er
la n
d s
H is
to ri
ca l
K o
m em
(2 0
0 3
) 1
9 6
0 –
1 9
9 5
D ec
re as
in g
p ar
en ta
l su
p p
o rt
fo r
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t
N ew
Z ea
la n
d H
is to
ri ca
l D
ep ar
tm en
t o
f C
h il
d, Y
o u
th an
d F am
il y
S er
v ic
es (2
0 0
5 )
2 0
0 0
– 2
0 0
3 In
cr ea
se in
re p
o rt
s o f
ch il
d m
al tr
ea tm
en t
Zolotor and Puzia236
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
T ab
le 2.
(C o
n ti
n u
ed )
C o
u n
tr y
C o
m p
ar is
o n
A u
th o
r/ A
g en
cy (y
ea r)
Y ea
rs F
in d
in g
s
P o
rt u g al
H is
to ri
ca l
C o m
m is
si o n s
fo r
th e
P ro
te ct
io n
o f
C h il
d re
n an
d Y
o u
n g
st er
s (2
0 0
5 )
2 0 0 0 – 2 0 0 3
In cr
ea se
in th
e n u m
b er
o f
re p o rt
ed ca
se s
o f
v io
le n ce
ag ai
n st
ch il
d re
n
R ep
u bl
ic o
f M
o ld
ov a
H is
to ri
ca l
S aj
ko w
sk a
(2 0
0 7
) 2
0 0
5 –
2 0
0 6
N o
re le
va n
t fi
n d
in g
s
G eo
g ra
p h
ic N
at io
n al
A u
th o
ri ty
fo r
th e
P ro
te ct
io n
o f
C h
il d
R ig
h ts
(2 0
0 5
) 2
0 0
0 –
2 0
0 2
N o
ch an
g e
in th
e n
u m
b er
o f
re p
o rt
ed m
al tr
ea tm
en t
ca se
s
R o
m an
ia H
is to
ri ca
l S
aj ko
w sk
a (2
0 0
7 )
2 0
0 5
– 2
0 0
6 H
ig h
er n
u m
b er
in d
ic at
es th
e ap
p ro
p ri
at en
es s
o f
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t b
an s
L ow
er es
ti m
at ed
p re
va le
n ce
o f
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t, fe
w er
ca se
s o
f ch
il d
ab u
se re
p o
rt ed
by te
ac h
er s
L it
tl e
as so
ci at
io n
b et
w ee
n co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
b an
s an
d g
en er
al v
ie w
s o
n ch
il d
re ar
in g
G eo
g ra
p h
ic S
aj ko
w sk
a (2
0 0
7 )
2 0
0 5
– 2
0 0
6 L
it tl
e as
so ci
at io
n b
et w
ee n
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t b
an s
an d
es ti
m at
ed p
re va
le n
ce o
f co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t,
o r
at ti
tu d
es to
w ar
d co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
as a
d is
ci p
li n
ar y
m et
h o
d
S w
ed en
H is
to ri
ca l
S ta
ti st
ic s
S w
ed en
(2 0
0 5
) 1
9 5
6 –
1 9
9 6
, in
te rm
it te
n tl
y D
ec re
as e
in p
u bl
ic su
p p
o rt
fo r
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t
C o
m m
it te
e o
f C
h il
d A
b u
se an
d R
el at
ed Is
su es
(2 0
0 5
) 1
9 8
0 ;
2 0
0 0
L ow
er re
p o
rt ed
p re
va le
n ce
o f
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t
S w
ed is
h O
p in
io n
R es
ea rc
h In
st it
u te
(2 0
0 5
) 1
9 8
1 In
cr ea
se d
en d
o rs
em en
t o
f th
e b
el ie
f th
at ch
il d
re n
sh o
u ld
b e
ra is
ed w
it h
o u
t co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
T h
e S
w ed
is h
N at
io n
al C
o u
n ci
l fo
r th
e P
re ve
n ti
o n
o f
C ri
m e
(2 0
0 5
) 1
9 8
1 –
1 9
9 6
In cr
ea se
d n
u m
b er
o f
re p
o rt
s o
f ch
il d
ab u
se ,
m aj
o ri
ty d
ea li
n g
w it
h m
in o
r v io
le n
ce ,
an d
n o
si g
n ifi
ca n
t in
cr ea
se in
ch il
d d
ea th
s d
u e
to ab
u se
S ta
ti st
ic s
S w
ed en
(2 0
0 5
) 1
9 9
6 A
tt it
u d
es to
w ar
d co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
w er
e re
la te
d to
im m
ig ra
n t
st at
u s
in m
id d
le sc
h o
o l
C o
m m
it te
e o
f C
h il
d A
b u
se an
d R
el at
ed Is
su es
(2 0
0 5
) 2
0 0
0 D
ec re
as in
g p
re va
le n
ce o
f co
rp o
ra l
p u
n is
h m
en t
si n
ce 1
9 6
0 s
L in
d el
l an
d S
ve d
in (2
0 0
1 )
2 0
0 1
In cr
ea si
n g
p o
li ce
re p
o rt
s o
f ch
il d
p hy
si ca
l ab
u se
D u
rr an
t et
a l.
(2 0
0 3
) 2
0 0
3 C
o m
p ar
ed to
C an
ad ia
n m
o th
er s,
a g
re at
er p
er ce
n ta
g e
o f
m o
th er
s re
p o rt
ed h o ld
in g
n eg
at iv
e v ie
w s
o f
co rp
o ra
l p u n is
h m
en t
A lo
w er
p er
ce n
ta g
e re
p o
rt ed
co rp
o ra
l p
u n
is h
m en
t to
b e
n o
rm al
p ar
en ti
n g
G eo
g ra
p h
ic S
aj ko
w sk
a (2
0 0
7 )
2 0
0 5
– 2
0 0
6 N
o re
le va
n t
fi n
d in
g s
Bans Against Corporal Punishment 237
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
punishment found that, whereas the majority of mothers in either country disapproved of physical punishment, a greater percent- age of Swedish mothers reported holding views that condemned its use (Durrant et al., 2003).
Associations between the prohibition of corporal punishment and more general views on childrearing are not as consistently supported by research (Sajkowska, 2007). In 2005–06, a study of adult attitudes in seven countries in Europe was conducted (here- after referred to as the multi-national European study). Three of the countries, Bulgaria, Latvia and Ukraine, had, at the time of the study, laws prohibiting corporal punishment. One country, Moldova, did not have legal prohibition of corporal punishment at the time of the study, but has since passed such a law. Three countries, Lithuania, Macedonia and Poland, do not have laws prohibiting corporal punishment of children in the home. This study suggests that the legality of corporal punishment in a country did not influence the frequency with which respondents indicated agreement with the beliefs that: ‘Children should be afraid of their parents, because fear fosters obedience’, ‘Tough treatment by parents strengthens the child and, ultimately, is of benefit to him or her’ or ‘A child is his/her parents’ property, so the parents should be the only ones to make decisions about his/her fate.’ Respondents from countries with a legal ban on corporal punishment did not seem to differ from respondents from coun- tries with no such ban in their reported beliefs about which situ- ations would warrant third-party intervention (e.g. parents ‘punishing their child with a corporal punishment’, parents ‘beating a child with a belt or another object’). Respondents also did not differ in their indications of situations where they would consider corporal punishment to be justifiable.
One study compared how an act that a parent considers to be ‘violent’ changed over time and contexts. In 2001, 61.9 per cent of German parents indicated that they considered a child being slapped across the face by a teacher to be an act of violence, whereas only 30.7 per cent indicated that they considered a child being slapped across the face for disobedience by his or her parent to be an act of violence (Bussmann, 2004). Corporal punishment in the school has been illegal in Germany since the 1970s while, at the time of the study, corporal punishment in the home had only been recently been banned (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2001b). Results of a pre-post law study show that most parents have more sensitive perceptions of what is ‘violent’, especially regarding more severe forms of corporal pun- ishment. In 1996, 37.2 per cent of German parents indicated that they considered ‘thrashing’ to be an act of violence; in 2001, 48.2 per cent of parents reported this belief. In 1996, 12.5 per cent of parents reported that they considered a forceful smack on the
‘Associations between the prohibition of corporal punishment and more general views on childrearing are not as consistently supported by research’
‘One study compared how an act that a parent considers to be “violent” changed over time and contexts’
Zolotor and Puzia238
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
bottom to be an act of violence; in 2001, this number had increased to 18.2 per cent (Bussmann, 2004).
Adult participants from the multi-national European study were asked about their beliefs regarding the appropriateness of parental use of corporal punishment (Sajkowska, 2007). Respon- dents from countries where corporal punishment was or is now illegal did not seem to differ in their reported beliefs from respondents in countries where corporal punishment of children is legal. Respondents from the professional populations in the same countries (primary school teachers working in the capital cities) were asked similar questions regarding their opinions of the appropriateness of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure. Respondents from countries where corporal punish- ment was illegal did not differ in their responses to the question ‘Should the way parents treat their children be regulated by law?’ from respondents from countries where corporal punish- ment of children was legal. However, it is important to note that respondents from countries where corporal punishment was illegal at the time of the study more frequently supported a ban on corporal punishment than respondents in countries where cor- poral punishment was legal. Table 3 provides a summary of findings from the multi-national European study (Sajkowska, 2007).
Perceptions of social norms regarding corporal punishment may affect the endorsement of physical discipline and beliefs about corporal punishment (Sajkowska, 2007). The multi-national Euro- pean study addressed this, asking about perceived corporal pun- ishment prevalence. Responses did not vary by legality of corporal punishment. However, when the same question was asked of pro- fessionals working with children, respondents in countries where corporal punishment was prohibited indicated a lower estimated prevalence of corporal punishment, but not of more severe corpo- ral punishment.
Table 3. Summary of the multi-national study in central and eastern Europe (Sajkowska, 2007)
Country Sample
size
Per cent endorsing
support for corporal
punishment ban
Per cent of children
experiencing corporal
punishment
Per cent believe that corporal punishment is
decreasing
Per cent encountering child abuse in the past year
Bulgaria 241 67.9% 58.7% 24.1% 26.1% Latvia 152 46.1% 53.3% 18.4% 21.7% Ukraine 137 69.3% 44.0% 19.7% 12.9% Moldova 151 64.2% 56.2% 22.5% 30.5% Lithuania 172 54.1% 62.3% 27.3% 17.4% Macedonia 203 77.3% 82.3% 22.5% 26.6% Poland 158 59.5% 72.1% 24.1% 30.4%
‘Respondents from countries where corporal punishment was illegal at the time of the study more frequently supported a ban’
‘Perceptions of social norms regarding corporal punishment may affect the endorsement of physical discipline and beliefs about corporal punishment’
Bans Against Corporal Punishment 239
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
Prevalence
The critical policy question is whether or not legal prohibitions on corporal punishment change the rates of physical punishment or child abuse.
In 2002, interviews with 2000 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 were conducted in Germany, replicating a 1992 study (n = 2400) of the prevalence of physical punishment in the home after the passage of a legislative ban in 2000 (Bussmann, 2004). In 1992, 81.2 per cent of adolescents reported ever being lightly slapped across the face by parents; in 2002, this number had fallen to 68.9 per cent. In 1992, 43.6 per cent of adolescents reported ever having received severe slaps; in 2002, this was reported by only 13.9 per cent of adolescents.
The study of Swedish and Canadian mothers found that only 5 per cent of Swedish mothers, compared to 17 per cent of Canadian mothers, reported that corporal punishment was a normal element of their parenting (Durrant et al., 2003). In 1996, 77 per cent of German parents of children under 18 reported ever having given their children light slaps in the face. In 2001, this number had decreased to 59 per cent. Additionally, in 1996, 33 per cent of parents reported ever having spanked their child, and in 2001, only 26 per cent of parents reported ever having done so (Bussmann, 2004).
The Swedish response to the UN survey of violence against children referenced two studies that aimed to determine the preva- lence of corporal punishment in Sweden (Sweden, 2005). In 1980, a sample of Swedish children was asked whether a parent had ever used some form of physical punishment in the last year: 51 per cent reported that they had. In 2000, a similar study found that only 14 per cent of the children indicated that they had ever experienced corporal punishment. The available data on corporal punishment of children in Sweden indicated that in the 1960s the use of corporal punishment was widespread. In the 1970s, about 50 per cent of children were corporally punished. By the 1980s, the number had fallen to about one-third, and then further declined to about 20 per cent in the 1990s (Janson, 2001).
The multi-national European study asked teachers, ‘Have you encountered cases of child victims of family violence in your professional practice in the past year?’ (Sajkowska, 2007). As shown in Table 3, respondents from countries where corporal pun- ishment is illegal indicated that they had seen such cases less frequently than those in countries where corporal punishment was legal at the time of the study.
In 2002, only 4.8 per cent of German adolescents reported ever having been beaten on the bottom with a rod, compared to 41.3 per cent ten years earlier (Bussmann, 2004). Additionally, in 2002,
‘Whether or not legal prohibitions on corporal punishment change the rates of physical punishment or child abuse’
‘Data on corporal punishment of children in Sweden indicated that in the 1960s the use of corporal punishment was widespread’
Zolotor and Puzia240
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
only 3.2 per cent of adolescents in Germany reported ever having been beaten to the point of bruising, compared to 30.6 per cent in 1992. This report of the study of corporal punishment experienced by German adolescents looked separately at the results found in families who reported frequently using corporal punishment com- pared with families using other non-violent disciplinary measures. Even in these ‘violence-prone’ families, adolescent surveys indi- cated decreases in the severity of the punishments. In 1992, 54.2 per cent of adolescents in ‘violence-prone’ families reported having been beaten on the bottom with a rod; in 2002, this number had decreased to 29.7 per cent. Almost all of adolescents in ‘violence-prone’ families in the 1992 study reported being beaten to the point of bruising (98.9%), compared with only 20.1 per cent in 2002.
Police reports on physical child abuse in Sweden indicate a significant increase in the number of reported cases between 1981 and 1996; however, this may reflect an increase in the Swedes’ tendency to report suspected cases of abuse rather than in the true prevalence of abuse in Sweden (Durrant, 1999; Lindell and Svedin, 2001). According to an analysis of 182 case files dealing with child physical abuse between the 1960s and the 1990s in the district of Dordrecht, a provincial town in the Netherlands, decreases in severe child abuse rates can be detected before the legislative reform in 2007 (Komen, 2003). Although there is insuf- ficient information to determine a trend in child homicides due to abuse, child deaths as a result of physical abuse did not signifi- cantly increase between 1971 and 1998 in Sweden (Durrant, 1999). This may reflect a type of family violence that is most severe and intractable, and therefore not likely to be susceptible to legislative or educational efforts.
Finally, it is important that data obtained from social service agencies on reports of child abuse are considered carefully. In Croatia, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Portugal, official reports of child abuse, neglect and maltreatment indicate higher rates of reporting abuse and/or higher conviction rates after corporal punishment had been legally prohibited (Bulgaria, 2005; Croatia, 2005; Denmark, 2005; Finland, 2005; National Statistical Institute, 2004; New Zealand, 2005; Portugal, 2005; Romania, 2005). These findings, however, do not necessar- ily reveal an increase in the prevalence of abuse. They may reflect a change in reporting bias commensurate with legislative change.
Discussion
Nations around the world have taken up legal bans on corporal punishment at accelerating rates since the introduction of the
‘Almost all of adolescents in “violence-prone” families in the 1992 study reported being beaten to the point of bruising’
‘Higher rates of reporting abuse and/or higher conviction rates after corporal punishment had been legally prohibited’
Bans Against Corporal Punishment 241
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
CRC. It is noteworthy that only nations with representative forms of government have taken up bans on corporal punishment. Many more governments (both in number and in type) have taken up bans on corporal punishment in schools. Non-representative gov- ernments may have a different perspective on the rights of indi- viduals as well as children.
Laws banning corporal punishment vary greatly in their lan- guage and the range of punishments. The majority of studies that have looked at attitudes toward corporal punishment before and after the ban of corporal punishment and those which compare countries with corporal punishment bans to those without corporal punishment bans demonstrate that general support of corporal punishment declines after the enactment of anti-corporal punish- ment legislation. Likewise, a decline in corporal punishment behaviours appears to be nearly universal after corporal punish- ment bans or in comparison with countries without corporal pun- ishment bans.
One important point to underscore in interpreting the trends in corporal punishment attitudes and behaviours over time and loca- tion is that, when multi-year trend data are available (i.e. Sweden), corporal punishment support and behaviours decline before the ban on corporal punishment and continue to decline after the ban on corporal punishment. We interpret this to mean that corporal punishment legislation does not work in a vacuum, but is part of a dynamic national cultural landscape. In an elected representative government, in order for lawmakers to consider such a ban, there must be sufficient popular support for such a ban. This will most often occur when corporal punishment support and behaviour are already on a fairly steep multi-year decline. Passage of anti- corporal punishment laws will reinforce and strengthen existing attitudes, thus reinforcing the decline. A ban on corporal punish- ment is unlikely to be passed or supported in the absence of popular support against corporal punishment. However, legal bans can be used to reinforce popular sentiment or push popular senti- ment as long as there is sufficient momentum. Also, legislative bans on certain types of corporal punishment could be considered earlier than broad bans on corporal punishment. For example, most people in civil societies would consider it objectionable to use corporal punishment against very young children (perhaps less than one- or two-years old). Similarly, in some cultures, a broad ban on corporal punishment might be objectionable where a ban on corporal punishment with an object (like a belt or switch) might receive more popular support.
Changes in the rates of child physical abuse have been most difficult to evaluate and/or most resistant to change by anti- corporal punishment legislation. There are several reasons for this. There have been very few studies of child abuse rates before and
‘Only nations with representative forms of government have taken up bans on corporal punishment’
‘Corporal punishment legislation does not work in a vacuum, but is part of a dynamic national cultural landscape’
‘Changes in the rates of child physical abuse have been most difficult to evaluate’
Zolotor and Puzia242
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
after anti-corporal punishment legislation outside of official reporting data. The rates of abuse may go up in response to a change in national sentiment in which corporal punishment was formerly considered acceptable parenting and is now considered unacceptable. Reports for abuse are inherently limited to the biases of the reporting system, laws and public opinion (Zolotor et al., 2008). The few studies of court proceedings in countries with anti-corporal punishment legislation have demonstrated a decrease in the severity of reported or prosecuted physical abuse, indicating a decline in severe physical abuse (Durrant, 1999; Komen, 2003; Lindell and Svedin, 2001).
Limitations
Perhaps the most important limitation of this paper is the fact that we excluded studies that were not published in English due to limitations in resources. Furthermore, our summary of the legis- lative reforms utilised free online translation tools. To minimise the introduction of error, we used multiple translators and chose the most coherent translation from which to abstract data about the law. The scope of this paper does not include a review of the introduction of legislative changes, conjoint education and public awareness messaging or the enforcement of such laws. These are also important factors to consider in understanding changes in corporal punishment attitudes, behaviours and abuse rates. Also, we do not consider state, provincial, or municipal legislative reforms. The cited studies use comparisons of varying quality. Geographic comparisons without historical comparison may yield faulty results. Sampling strategies and survey instruments often varied over time, and there are no multi-year, multi-national studies from which to draw our conclusions.
Conclusions
There are several arguments on which policymakers can rely to introduce legislative reform against corporal punishment. These include a change in behaviours (corporal punishment and abuse) and the relative benefit to society as well as advancing human rights. Clearly, corporal punishment bans are associated with declining support for and practice of corporal punishment. The relationship of such laws with decreases in physical abuse remains less clear. A policy framework for these new laws should consider beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice (Beauchamp, 1994). It is clear that the balance of beneficence rests with an end to corporal punishment. Children would have less mental health problems during childhood and adulthood and better relationships
‘We excluded studies that were not published in English due to limitations in resources’
‘Several arguments on which policymakers can rely to introduce legislative reform against corporal punishment’
Bans Against Corporal Punishment 243
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
with parents. Parents can be taught highly effective alternate strategies for corporal punishment. When considering non- maleficence, a corporal punishment ban might result in poorer immediate compliance of children, unless parents have sufficient alternate skills. The more important issue to consider is the effect on families and parents. Anti-corporal punishment legislation should support families and children, not criminalise parents. Herein lies a challenge to governments, to send a clear and strong message to parents without the undue burden of punishment. The most challenging policy principle lies with respect for autonomy. Parents in many countries and societies argue that legal control of parenting is tantamount to invasion of privacy and corporal pun- ishment is not the business of government. A contrary argument to consider is the relative value of the autonomy of children. Parents must make decisions to support the best interests of their children (e.g. go to school, eat your vegetables, wearing shoes when it is cold) however, the value of corporal punishment in childrearing is less clear. Respect for child autonomy would support legislative bans on corporal punishment (Durrant, 1999). If corporal punish- ment were consistently found to be in the best interests of children, it would be difficult to support autonomy. However, despite the lack of agreement, the body of empiric literature on corporal punishment does not demonstrate benefit to children (Gershoff, 2002). Lastly, policymakers must consider the principle of justice, or the relative distribution of benefits and risks of a new law and to whom. This will ultimately depend on the value of children in a civil society.
References
Baumrind D, Larzelere RE, Cowan PA. 2002. Ordinary physical punishment: is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin 128(4): 580–589; discussion 602–611.
Beauchamp TL. 1994. The ‘four-principles’ approach. In Principles of Health Care Ethics, Gillon R (ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd: New York, NY.
Berlin LJ, Ispa JM, Fine MA, Malone PS, Brooks-Gunn J, Brady-Smith C, Ayoub C, Bai Y. 2009. Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal punishment for low-income white, African American, and Mexican American toddlers. Child Development 80(5): 1403–1420.
Bulgaria. 2005. Response to the United Nations study on violence against children. Available: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/ responses/Bulgaria.pdf [19 October 2009].
Bussmann K. 2004. Evaluating the subtle impact of a ban on corporal punish- ment of children in Germany. Child Abuse Review 13(5): 292–311. DOI: 10.1002/car.866.
Center for Effective Discipline. 2009. Discipline and the law. Available: http:// www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=laws-main [19 October 2009].
Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2001. General Comment Number 1. The Aims of Education. UNICEF: Geneva, Switzerland.
‘The most challenging policy principle lies with respect for autonomy’
‘This will ultimately depend on the value of children in a civil society’
Zolotor and Puzia244
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2006. General Comment Number 8. The Right of the Child to Protection from Corporal Punishment and Other Cruel and Degrading Forms of Punishment. UNICEF: Geneva, Switzerland.
Costa Rica. 2008. Law to avoid physical punishment to minors. Available: http://www.dhr.go.cr/nopeguemos/ley8654.html [6 May 2010].
Croatia. 1999. Law 1 and penalties for violating the law (Family Act, Articles 88, 92 and 108). Available: http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/ 306171.html [19 October 2009].
Croatia. 2005. Response to the United Nations study on violence against children. Available: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/ responses/Croatia.pdf [19 October 2009].
Cyprus. 1994. Law 1 and penalties for violating the law (The violence in the family (prevention and protection of victims) law 1994, Section 1.3. Available: http://www.familyviolence.gov.cy/upload/legislation/law_1994_en.pdf [19 October 2009].
Denmark. 2005. Response to the United Nations study on violence against children. Available: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/ responses/Denmark.pdf [19 October 2009].
Durrant JE. 1999. Evaluating the success of Sweden’s corporal punishment ban. Child Abuse & Neglect 23(5): 435–448.
Durrant JE, Rose-Krasnor L, Broberg AG. 2003. Physical punishment and mater- nal beliefs in Sweden and Canada. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 34: 585–604.
Fiji Court of Appeal. 2002. Naushad Ali v. State. Cited in General comment number 8. The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel and degrading forms of punishment. UNICEF: Geneva, Switzerland.
Finland. 2005. Response to the United Nations study on violence against children. Available: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/ responses/Finland.pdf [19 October 2009].
Focus on the Family. Effective biblical discipline. Available: http://www2. ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/responses/Netherlands.pdf [19 October 2009].
Germany. 2000. Civil Code, Article 1631. Available: http://bundesrecht.juris.de/ bgb/__1631.html [19 October 2009].
Gershoff ET. 2002. Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behav- iors and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin 128(4): 539–579.
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. 2001a. Available: http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/ [19 October 2009].
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. 2001b. Germany: Full Country Report. Available: http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/ pages/frame.html [19 October 2009].
Greece. 2006. Law 3500/2006 The Combating of Intra-Family Violence, Article 4. Available: http://www.dsanet.gr/Epikairothta/Nomothesia/n3500_06.htm [19 October 2009].
Israel. 2000. Israel Supreme Court, Criminal Appeal 4956/98 Plonit v A.G. 54(1)P.D. Available: http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/Israel_ Judgment.pdf [19 October 2009].
Janson S. 2001. Children and abuse: Corporal punishment and other forms of child abuse in Sweden at the end of the second millenium. Available: http:// www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/11/98/b1ebdfe0.pdf [19 October 2009].
Komen M. 2003. Physical child abuse and social change. Judicial intervention in families in The Netherlands, 1960–1995. Child Abuse & Neglect 27(8): 951– 965.
Bans Against Corporal Punishment 245
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
Larzelere RE. 2008. Disciplinary spanking: the scientific evidence. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 29(4): 334–335.
Larzelere RE, Kuhn BR. 2005. Comparing child outcomes of physical punish- ment and alternative disciplinary tactics: a meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 8(1): 1–37.
Latvia. 1998. Law (Protection of the Rights of the Child, Sections 9.2, 24.4, and 24.5) and penalties (1) for violating the law (Article 52.4). Available: http://www.ttc.lv/advantagecms/LV/meklet/meklet_dokumentus.html?query= Protection % 20 of % 20 the % 20 Rights % 20 of % 20 the % 20 Child % 20 Law & resultsPerPage=10 [19 October 2009].
Lindell C, Svedin CG. 2001. Physical child abuse in Sweden: a study of police reports between 1986 and 1996. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemi- ology 36(3): 150–157.
National Statistical Institute. 2004. Punished criminality and persons convicted in 2003. Available: http://www.nsi.bg/Stat_e/SearchFrame.htm?query=child+ abuse&stpos=0&Submit=Search&stype=AND [19 October 2009].
Netherlands. 2007. Civil Code, Article 1–247. Available: http://wetten.overheid. nl/BWBR0002656/Boek1/Titel14/Afdeling1/Artikel247/ geldigheidsdatum_13-05-2009 [19 October 2009].
New Zealand. 2005. Response to the United Nations study on violence against children. Available: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/ responses/NewZealand.pdf [19 October 2009].
Portugal. 2005. Response to the United Nations study on violence against children. Available: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/ responses/Portugal.pdf [19 October 2009].
Portugal. 2007. Penal Code, Articles 152 and 143. Available: http://www.gnr.pt/ portal/internet/legislacao/pdf/CP.pdf [19 October 2009].
Republic of Moldova. 2008. The Family Code, Articles 53 and 62. Available: http://www.dejure.md/library_upld/d257.txt [19 October 2009].
Roberts JV. 2000. Changing public attitudes towards corporal punishment: the effects of statutory reform in Sweden. Child Abuse & Neglect 24(8): 1027– 1035.
Romania. 2004. Law on Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child, Chapter 1, Article 28; Chapter 3, Article 90. Available: http://www. dreptonline.ro/en_resourses/en_romanian_child_protection.php [19 October 2009].
Romania. 2005. Response to the United Nations study on violence against children. Available: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/ responses/Romania.pdf [19 October 2009].
Runyan DK, Shankar V, Hassan F, Hunter WM, Jain D, Paula CS Bangdiwala SI, Ramiro LS, Muñoz SR, Vizcarra B, Bordin I. In press. International variations in harsh child discipline. Pediatrics.
Sajkowska M. 2007. The problem of child abuse: Attitudes and experiences in seven countries of central and eastern Europe. Warsaw University: Warsaw, Poland.
Spain. 2007. Revised law, civil code, article 154. Available: http://civil.udg.es/ normacivil/estatal/CC/1T7.htm [19 October 2009].
Stein MT, Perrin EL. 1998. Guidance for effective discipline. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics 101(4 Pt 1): 723–728.
Straus MA, Paschall MJ. 2009. The effects of corporal punishment: Corporal punishment by mothers and development of children’s cognitive ability–a longitudinal study of two nationally representative age cohorts. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 18: 459–483.
Zolotor and Puzia246
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
Sweden. 1979. Children and Parents Code, Chapter 6.1. Available: http:// www.notisum.se/rnp/SLS/lag/19490381.htm [19 October 2009].
Sweden. 2005. Response to the United Nations study on violence against children. Available: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/ responses/Sweden.pdf [19 October 2009].
UNICEF (ed.). 2001. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, revised edition. UNICEF: Geneva, Switzerland.
UNICEF. 2006. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available: http:// www.unicef.org/crc/index_30229.html [19 October 2009].
Uruguay. 2007. Law No. 18.214 Proyecto de Ley Sustitutivo—Prohibición del castigo físico. Available: http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/Portadas/ index1024.html [19 October 2009].
Venezuela. 2007. Organic Law for the Protection of Children and Adolescents, Article 32-A and 358. Available: http://www.crin.org/Law/instrument.asp? InstID=1251 [19 October 2009].
Ziegert K. 1983. The Swedish prohibition of corporal punishment: A preliminary report. Journal of Marriage & the Family 45(4): 917–926.
Zolotor AJ, Theodore AD, Chang JJ, Berkoff MC, Runyan DK. 2008. Speak softly–and forget the stick. Corporal punishment and child physical abuse. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(4): 364–369.
Bans Against Corporal Punishment 247
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 229–247 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/car.1131
Copyright of Child Abuse Review is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
