Annotated bibliography

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms Jo Becker

Social Research: An International Quarterly, Volume 85, Number 1, Spring 2018, pp. 255-271 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Ebsco Publishing (8 May 2018 07:55 GMT)

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/692752

social research Vol. 85 : No. 1 : Spring 2018 255

Jo Becker Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms

THE TERM “HARMFUL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES” TYPICALLY BRINGS TO MIND CHILD

marriage, female genital mutilation/cutting, and so-called “honor kill-

ings,” but rarely corporal punishment. Yet corporal punishment is

arguably the most pervasive harmful traditional practice children expe-

rience today. In nearly every part of the world, parents use physical

punishment to “discipline” their children. Such corporal punishment

typically takes the form of hitting a child with a bare hand or an object

such as a stick or paddle. A 2014 survey found that four of every five

children between the ages of two and 14—an estimated 1 billion glob-

ally—experience physical punishment in their home on a regular basis

(UNICEF 2014, 96).

The practice of corporal punishment is rooted in both cultural

norms and religious belief. Parents often believe that corporal pun-

ishment will teach children good behavior. They hit their children be-

cause it is socially accepted and because they themselves often were

hit growing up. Some religious teachings appear to justify the prac-

tice.1 The adage “spare the rod, spoil the child,” rooted in the Old Tes-

tament Book of Proverbs, suggests not only that corporal punishment

of children is permitted, but also that it is expected of good parents.

Influenced by English common law, during the twentieth century,

more than 70 countries enshrined the rights of parents to “reason-

able chastisement” in their legal codes (Global Initiative 2015a).

256 social research

Social norm theory suggests that ending harmful practices

depends on changing collective beliefs about the acceptability and

efficacy of the practice, and that legal reform is of limited utility,

or even counterproductive (Mackie and LeJeune 2009). Experience

around female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), for example, has

found that extended local dialogue about community values can lead

to voluntary abandonment of FGM/C (Gillespie and Melching 2010).

Legal reform as a strategy to end FGM/C has generally been ineffective

or simply driven the practice underground. As long as FGM/C remains

the norm for most families, individual parents will continue to have

their daughters cut, perceiving the social inclusion that FGM/C offers

to outweigh the risks of potential prosecution. Some scholars find

that only when attitude change is already underway is legal reform

effective in reinforcing new norms (Shell-Duncan et al. 2103).

In contrast to the experience of challenging other harmful

traditional practices, this paper argues that legal reform, when ac-

companied by public education, can be an effective strategy to end

the corporal punishment of children. Evidence from multiple coun-

tries has found that when corporal punishment is prohibited by law,

changes in attitudes and practices follow. Nearly all the countries that

have prohibited corporal punishment have done so ahead of public

opinion (Global Initiative 2017, 12). Yet change in practice and atti-

tudes following legal reform can be both swift and dramatic.

THE HARMS OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT Recent research finds that the effects of corporal punishment on chil-

dren are overwhelmingly negative. Studies have found that children

who experience corporal punishment are more aggressive towards

others, and more likely to resort to violence to respond to conflict

(Ani and Grantham-McGregor 1998). They are more likely to engage in

delinquent or antisocial behavior, including bullying, lying, cheating,

truancy, and criminal activity. A German study of more than 45,000

ninth graders, for example, found that children who were subjected

to severe corporal punishment were five times more likely to become

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms 257

violent offenders (Pfeiffer 2013, 97). Corporal punishment may

damage children’s mental health, leading to greater anxiety, depres-

sion, low self-esteem, and hopelessness. It is also linked to lower IQ

scores and poor school performance (Gershoff 2002). The damage

extends well into adulthood: adults who experienced corporal punish-

ment as children are more likely to engage in aggression and criminal

behavior, as well as domestic violence towards an intimate partner

or child, and experience higher rates of depression, alcoholism, and

suicidal tendencies (Afifi et al. 2012).

A meta-analysis of more than 250 published studies examin-

ing corporal punishment and its impacts found that not a single one

demonstrated any benefits to the practice (Global Initiative 2016).

Contrary to popular belief, corporal punishment is not effective as

a disciplinary measure. One US study, for example, found that when

children between the ages of two and five were spanked by their moth-

ers, 73 percent of the children repeated the same behavior for which

they had been hit within the next 10 minutes (Holden, Williamson,

and Holland 2014). Corporal punishment also damages parent-child

relationships; children report that after being physically punished,

they feel hurt, angry, and frightened of their parents (Dobbs 2005).

When parents physically punish their children, they are often

angry, making it easy for the level of punishment to escalate beyond

what was intended and cause serious injury, or at times even death.

Shaking babies or toddlers, for example, can lead to permanent brain

injuries. In the United States alone, over 700 children die each year

due to physical abuse by parents (US Department of Health and Hu-

man Services 2017).

THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERATIVE Regardless of the scientific evidence of harm, corporal punishment

violates the human rights of children. Children, like adults, have a

right to respect for their dignity and physical integrity and to equal

protection under the law. Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of

the Child obligates governments to take all appropriate measures “to

258 social research

protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury

or abuse … while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any

other person who has the care of that child.” The Committee on the

Rights of the Child, which monitors compliance with the Convention,

has stated that this obligation “does not leave room for any level of

legalized violence against children. Corporal punishment and other

cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of violence and

States must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and

educational measures to eliminate them” (CRC 2007).

The rationale for legal reform to end corporal punishment of

children is based on several key arguments. One is that children are

entitled to equal protection under the law, including in the home. If

hitting an adult is considered assault, hitting a child should not be

legally permissible either. A second is that as long as corporal punish-

ment is legal, parents and other caregivers are more likely to believe

it is acceptable to hit children in their care. A third argument is that

legal prohibition of corporal punishment—particularly when accom-

panied by public education—will motivate parents to look into al-

ternative forms of discipline and encourage governments to provide

appropriate resources and education.

By early 2018, 53 countries had legally prohibited all corporal

punishment of children, including in the home, and 56 more had

stated a commitment to full prohibition (Global Initiative 2018).

Countries enacting bans included most European and Latin American

countries, and a handful of others in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

No states in the United States ban corporal punishment in the home.

Studies comparing attitudes and practice related to corporal punish-

ment before and after legal prohibition, however, are primarily lim-

ited to Europe and New Zealand. The following case studies explore

experiences in several countries.

Sweden

In 1979, Sweden became the first country in the world to explicitly

prohibit by law all forms of corporal punishment of children, including

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms 259

in the home. When its parliament began to debate prohibition, they

called it a “signal law,” i.e., a law that signaled an approach primar-

ily for public education. Its intent was not to prosecute and imprison

parents, except in the most extreme cases. After the law’s adoption,

the Ministry of Justice ran a large-scale public education campaign.

Brochures entitled “Can You Bring Up Children Successfully without

Smacking and Spanking?” were distributed to all households with

children, information on the issue was printed on milk cartons, and

children’s and antenatal clinics provided support and information to

parents. Within just a couple of years, over 90 percent of Swedish

families were aware of the law (Global Initiative 2015b).

Several studies have found significant changes over time in

attitudes towards corporal punishment among Swedes. In 1965, for

example, 53 percent of parents indicated support for corporal pun-

ishment, but in 1999, only 10 percent did so (Janson 2000). A 2014

study on changes in parenting practices in Sweden used over 53 years

of data to compare three cohorts—1958, 1981, and 2011—of young

to middle-aged adults and their self-reported experiences of being

slapped during childhood. The study found almost no differences be-

tween the 1958 and 1981 cohorts, but a significant drop between 1981

and 2011. Twenty percent of the 1958 cohort and 18 percent of the

1981 cohort said they were often slapped by their parents, but only

2 percent of the 2011 cohort said they were frequently slapped. The

study concluded that over the 53 years, the likelihood of participants

being slapped decreased by 93 percent, with almost the entire de-

cline—92 percent—occurring from 1981 (two years after the change

in the law) to 2011 (Trifan, Stattin, and Tilton-Weaver 2014).

New Zealand

New Zealand prohibited corporal punishment of children in 2007, after

nearly two years of fierce and acrimonious public debate. Previously,

a law known as Section 592 explicitly permitted New Zealand parents

to physically punish their children. In the 1980s, targeted lobbying

led to a prohibition on corporal punishment in childcare centers,

260 social research

institutions, and schools, but there was little interest in banning it in

the home.

In 1989, New Zealand appointed its first commissioner for chil-

dren, who began to advocate actively for repeal of Section 59 and a

full prohibition on all corporal punishment of children. In 1997, the

Committee on the Rights of the Child conducted its first review of

New Zealand’s compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the

Child, and recommended that New Zealand review its law and pro-

hibit all corporal punishment of children (CRC 1997).

In response to the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s ini-

tial recommendations, New Zealand’s cabinet instructed government

officials to report on how other countries approached the issue of

corporal punishment. The Ministry of Justice conducted research on

public opinions regarding the law, and found that a strong majority

—80 percent—of parents believed that it was acceptable to smack a

child, though only 9 percent believed that it was an “effective” strat-

egy in guiding a child towards better behavior. The Ministry said pub-

licly that it supported alternative forms of discipline, but that the

government had no plans to repeal Section 59 (Wood et al. 2008, 172).

In late 2003, the Committee on the Rights of the Child conclud-

ed its second review of New Zealand, criticizing its failure to repeal

Section 59 and again recommending that the country prohibit corpo-

ral punishment of children (CRC 2003). The same month, UNICEF pub-

lished a report that placed New Zealand third among the world’s rich-

est countries in its rate of child deaths from maltreatment. The report

found that children in New Zealand were six times more likely to die

from physical abuse as in the other countries surveyed (UNICEF 2003).

After a member of Parliament introduced a bill to repeal Sec-

tion 59, the issue became the focus of public debate. Groups oppos-

ing the repeal of Section 59 bought full-page ads in newspapers and

launched a petition campaign that garnered over 200,000 signatures.

Their opposition to the bill focused on three arguments: that physi-

cal punishment was a necessary and positive aspect of parental disci-

pline, that the proposed law unnecessarily intruded into family life,

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms 261

and that the repeal of Section 59 would result in criminal prosecution

of parents for even minor cases of physical punishment (Wood 2015).

A small core of advocates for the prohibition of corporal pun-

ishment secured support from 140 organizations for abolition. They

provided politicians in Wellington with briefing sheets and other ar-

guments in support of repeal, and ensured a significant presence in

the gallery every time Parliament debated the bill. The campaign de-

veloped media kits addressing myths and misunderstandings around

the proposed law, produced media releases, and presented spokes-

people, including religious leaders, supporting prohibition to news-

papers, radio, and television (Wood 2011).

Save the Children New Zealand commissioned research on

children’s experiences of corporal punishment, finding that 40 per-

cent of five- to seven-year-olds reported being smacked or hit around

the face or head, and 25 percent had been hit with objects including

belts, canes, tennis rackets, and spatulas (Dobbs 2005, 44). The study

also found that many children believed that their parents beat them

not to provide guidance, but out of anger.

Intense opposition to repeal of Section 59 continued up until

Parliament’s final vote in May 2007. Opponents of the “Anti-Smacking

Law” organized rallies around the country, coordinated an extensive

lobbying campaign, and brought international experts to New Zea-

land to advocate in favor of physical punishment. The day Parliament

voted to repeal Section 59, over a thousand protesters gathered in

front of the parliament building, waving banners and chanting slo-

gans opposing the proposed law (Wood 2011).

After the law changed, however, so did public attitudes. Public

opinion surveys over three decades found that in 1981, 89 percent of

the public approved of physical punishment of children. By 2008, a

year following legal reform, approval had dropped to 58 percent, and

after just five more years, to 40 percent. Analysis of the data found

that the steepest declines occurred during the 1990s after physical

punishment was banned in schools, and then following the 2007 ban

on corporal punishment in the home (D’Souza et al. 2016).

262 social research

Germany

Germany prohibited all corporal punishment of children in 2000,

accompanied by a 15-month awareness-raising campaign called “More

Respect for Children.” The campaign included billboards, lectures

and seminars that were covered by the media, and events including

theater and street parties, emphasizing children’s right to a nonvio-

lent upbringing (Global Initiative 2015b, 6).

A longitudinal study found that in 1996, 83 percent of Ger-

man parents believed that a “mild slap on the face” was acceptable,

but by 2008, only 25 percent of parents thought so (Bussman 2009).

Self-reports of children themselves may be more significant. In 1992,

30 percent of young people over the age of 11 reported that they had

been “thrashed,” while only 3 percent of young people reported the

same in 2002 (Federal Ministries 2003).

In 1992, a representative survey of thousands of Germans be-

tween ages 16 and 40 found that 26 percent reported that they had

not been physically punished in childhood. In 2011, a similar sur-

vey found that the percentage had doubled to 52 percent. Among the

youngest cohort, the percentage was even higher: 63 percent of 16- to

20-year-olds reported that they had never been physically punished

(Pfeiffer 2013, 97).

COMPARATIVE RESEARCH Two multicountry studies have looked at attitudes and practices

in countries that have banned corporal punishment of children

compared to those that have not. A 1999 study of 14 European Union

countries, surveying over 10,000 adults in over 200 cities, found

that people in countries that have banned corporal punishment of

children were less likely to find corporal punishment acceptable

than people in countries where it was still legal (Gracia and Herrero

2008). Another study conducted in 2007 interviewed 5,000 parents in

five European countries: Sweden, Austria, and Germany, which had

prohibited corporal punishment; and Spain and France, which had

not. It found that parents were significantly less likely to report using

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms 263

corporal punishment and less likely to find it acceptable in countries

that had banned corporal punishment, compared to parents living in

countries where it was still legal. For example, over half the French

and Spanish parents reported spanking their children, while only

17 percent of those in Austria and Germany, and only 4 percent of

Swedes, did so. The study concluded that “there can no longer be any

doubt about the violence-reducing effect of a ban on childrearing

violence” (Bussman 2009, 20).

PUBLIC EDUCATION VS LEGAL REFORM Governments seeking to end corporal punishment of children have

several possible avenues. They can rely primarily on public education,

raising awareness among parents about nonviolent parenting options

and the harms of corporal punishment. They can rely on legal reform,

banning corporal punishment, including in the home. Or they can

combine the two, prohibiting corporal punishment by law while also

conducting public awareness campaigns.

There is little research that compares the outcomes of relying

solely on public education to the outcomes of legal reform without pub-

lic education. What research exists suggests that combining the two

creates the greatest changes in both attitudes and practice. A 2002 study

of 10 countries that had prohibited corporal punishment concluded:

Unless public education is underpinned by legal reform it

can only ever be partially convincing, and limited in its

success. A retained defence of “reasonable chastisement”

serves to undermine professional arguments in favour of

“positive parenting” methods, and allows those wholly

or partly committed to physical punishment a powerful

reason not to adopt less harmful child-rearing practic-

es. Conversely, to introduce legal reform in the absence

of sustained programmes of public education and fam-

ily support for those in need of greater help would be

unacceptable. Removing a parental right “enjoyed” for

264 social research

centuries without helping parents to find effective and

reliable alternatives helps neither parents nor their chil-

dren; the evidence shows that attitudes and practices have

shifted most in countries which have invested in sustained

public education, such as Sweden. (Boyson 2002, 67)

ACCELERATING LEGAL REFORM In 2001, when the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment

was launched, only 11 countries had legally prohibited all corporal

punishment of children.3 Since then, the Global Initiative has used a

range of strategies to accelerate prohibition of corporal punishment,

working with national campaigns on legislative reform, and system-

atically using the United Nations treaty bodies and Universal Periodic

Review (UPR) of UN member countries to promote legal reform. In

the 16 years following the Global Initiative’s founding, the number

of states prohibiting all corporal punishment of children more than

quadrupled, from 11 to 53 (Global Initiative 2018).

As the basis for its advocacy, the Global Initiative tracked the

status of national legislation and court cases regarding corporal pun-

ishment in every country worldwide. This mapping examined all

relevant national legislation, including the settings where corporal

punishment might be already illegal and what further changes were

necessary to achieve a comprehensive ban. It also tracked relevant

court decisions, recommendations from relevant UN bodies, any com-

mitments that countries had made to ban corporal punishment, and

new laws under consideration that could be used to prohibit the prac-

tice (Newell 2015).

The Global Initiative used this information to systematically

brief UN treaty bodies, beginning with the Committee on the Rights

of the Child. The Global Initiative submitted information for every

country coming for review before the Committee, and by 2015, had

submitted 258 briefings (Bower 2015, 21). Based on the Global Ini-

tiative’s information, the Committee made recommendations to 188

states urging the complete prohibition of corporal punishment of

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms 265

children. In over a hundred of these cases, the Committee made the

recommendation more than once, as states came under subsequent

reviews. Every few years, representatives of the Global Initiative met

with the full committee, in order to update it regarding progress to-

wards global prohibition, and to highlight key issues (Newell 2015).

Encouraged by the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s will-

ingness to take up the issue, the Global Initiative widened its focus

and began making regular submissions to committees monitoring

compliance with other human rights treaties, which also began rec-

ommending that states prohibit all corporal punishment of children.4

In the case of the Committee against Torture, recommendations to

prohibit corporal punishment increased six-fold after the Global Ini-

tiative started submitting its briefings (Bower 2015, 54).

In 2008, the UN Human Rights Council initiated the process

of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), under which members assess

the human rights record of every UN member state every four years.

Beginning with the first UPR session, the Global Initiative began sub-

mitting briefings on every state. During the first cycle (2008–2011),

the Global Initiative submitted briefings on 175 states; in 96 cases,

other states made recommendations on corporal punishment to the

country under review (Global Initiative 2015c).

The UPR requires states under review to respond to the rec-

ommendations they have received by indicating whether they accept

the recommendation, reject it, or take note of it. Between 2008 and

2015, 129 states received at least one recommendation regarding cor-

poral punishment. By 2015, 19 of these had banned all corporal pun-

ishment of children, and an additional 38 had publicly committed

to legal reform (Bower 2015, 33). An independent assessment of the

Global Initiative concluded in 2015 that the strategy of utilizing trea-

ty bodies and the UPR had been particularly influential, and found a

clear correlation between the interventions of the Global Initiative in

these venues and the countries that have prohibited corporal punish-

ment (Bower 2015, 38).

266 social research

The Global Initiative has actively monitored new opportunities

for legal reform, supported national organizations in their advocacy,

and commented on bills and draft laws in dozens of countries. In

collaboration with Save the Children Sweden, the Global Initiative

conducted law reform workshops in several regions, and published

a series of briefing papers on how to campaign for changes in law. It

also worked with religious leaders to address faith-based opposition

to abolition, by highlighting universal religious values of compassion,

justice, equality, and nonviolence (Dodd 2015).

CONCLUSION Legal reform to prohibit corporal punishment can accelerate changes

in both attitudes and practice on the issue, even in countries where

large majorities support corporal punishment. Individual country

studies have found that public acceptance of corporal punishment

drops—sometimes dramatically—after legal reform prohibiting the

practice. Comparative studies have also found that parents are signifi-

cantly less likely to report using corporal punishment and less likely

to find it acceptable in countries that have banned corporal punish-

ment, compared to parents living in countries where it was still legal.

Change is most pronounced in countries that accompany legal prohi-

bition with public education campaigns.

Could the same result be achieved solely with public education?

Little research is available, though the EU comparative study found

drops in levels of acceptance of corporal punishment in all countries

that had banned the practice, regardless of how much they invested

in public education campaigns. Another question is whether attitudes

towards corporal punishment change over time—even without legal

action—as people become more aware of violence against children.

The United States, where all states allow corporal punishment in the

home, offers an interesting case. Public support for corporal punish-

ment has remained consistently high in the United States, despite ac-

tive media coverage of violence against children. In a 1995 survey, 87

percent of US adults said it was “sometimes appropriate” for parents

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms 267

to spank their children. In 2013, nearly 20 years later, the percentage

who gave that response had only dropped a few points, to 81 percent

(Harris Poll 2013).

One limitation of many surveys on corporal punishment is that

they ask parents to self-report on their attitudes and whether or not

they physically punish their children. In countries that have prohib-

ited the practice, individuals may underreport their use of corporal

punishment or misrepresent their attitudes, aware that the practice

is now illegal. Self-reporting by children on their actual treatment is

likely a better measure. Such studies are fewer in number, but also

show that the practice of corporal punishment declines when it is

prohibited by law.

Corporal punishment violates the rights of children, has long-

lasting negative impacts on children’s health and well-being, and cre-

ates significant socioeconomic costs. Although the practice is deeply

ingrained in many cultures, the available research shows that legal

reform—particularly when coupled with public education—can con-

tribute to rapid and lasting change in both attitudes and practices.

The findings on legal reform and corporal punishment may

have useful implications for changing other social norms. Factors

to be considered include the perceived benefits to individuals and

families who continue a practice, perceived costs of abandoning the

practice, and the degree to which the existing legal regime may send

a signal that the practice is acceptable and not to be questioned. An

interesting parallel, for example, may be child labor. Although pov-

erty is the main driver for families who send their children into the

workforce, the International Labor Organization has identified legal

prohibition as a key factor in a significant reduction of global child

labor rates. Since 2000, the number of children engaged in child labor

has dropped by more than one-third, from 245 million to 152 million

(ILO 2017). In the United States, for example, child labor persists pri-

marily in just one sector—agriculture—where an exemption in labor

law allows children to work legally at much younger ages than in

other sectors. Wages for adult farmworkers in the United States are

268 social research

very low, creating undeniable pressure for children to work to help

support the family. However, families may also calculate that since

child labor in agriculture is legal, it is also acceptable. Changes in the

law could persuade families to pursue other alternatives.

NOTES 1. E.g., “He that spareth his rod hateth his son; But he that loveth him

chasteneth him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24); “Do not withhold disci-

pline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not

die,” (Proverbs 23:13); “A rod and a reprimand impart wisdom, but a

child left undisciplined disgraces its mother” (Proverbs 29:15).

2. New Zealand’s 1961 Crimes Act, section 59: “(1) Every parent of a

child ... is justified in using force by way of correction towards the

child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.”

3. Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Croatia,

Bulgaria, Israel, and Germany.

4. These treaty bodies included the Human Rights Committee; the

Committee against Torture; the Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights; the Committee on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities; and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women.

REFERENCES Afifi, Tracy O, Natalie P. Mota, Patricia Dasiewicz, Harriet L. MacMillan,

and Jitender Sareen. 2012. “Physical Punishment and Mental

Disorders: Results from a Nationally Representative US Sample.”

Pediatrics, 130 (2): 184–92.

Ani, C. C. and S. Grantham-McGregor. 1998. “Family and Personal

Characteristics of Aggressive Nigerian Boys: Differences from and

Similarities with Western Findings.” Journal of Adolescent Health,

23(5): 311–17.

Bower, Carol. 2015. Evaluation of the Global Initiative to End All Corporal

Punishment of Children. London: Global Initiative.

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms 269

Boyson, Rowan. 2002. Equal Protection for Children: An Overview of the

Experience of Countries that Accord Children Full Protection from Physical

Punishment. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

Children.

Bussman, K. D. 2009. The Effect of Banning Corporal Punishment in Europe: A Five-

Nation Comparison, Halle-Wittenberg: Martin-Luther-Universitat.

Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). 1997. Concluding Observations:

New Zealand. CRC/C/15/Add.71.

———. 2003. Concluding Observations: New Zealand. CRC/C/15/Add.216.

———. 2007. General Comment No. 8 (2006), The Right of the Child to

Protection from Corporal Punishment and Other Cruel and Degrading

Treatment. CRC/C/GC/8.

Dobbs, T. 2005. Insights: Children and Young People Speak Out about Family

Discipline. Wellington: Save the Children New Zealand.

Dodd, Chris. 2015. Telephone interview by Jo Becker, November 25.

D’Souza, Amanda J., Marie Russell, Beth Wood, Louise Signal, and Dawn

Elder. 2016. “Attitudes to Physical Punishment of Children Are

Changing.” Archives of Diseases in Childhood 101: 690–93.

Federal Ministry of Justice and Federal Ministry for Family Affairs,

Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (Germany). 2003. “Violence in

Upbringing: An Assessment after the Introduction of the Right to a

Non-violent Upbringing.”

Gershoff, Elizabeth. 2002. “Corporal Punishment by Parents and

Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-analytic and

Theoretical Review.” Psychological Bulletin, 128 (4): 539–79.

Gillespie, Diane and Molly Melching. 2010. “The Transformative Power of

Democracy and Human Rights in Nonformal Education: The Case

of Tostan.” Adult Education Quarterly 60: 477–98.

Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. n.d.

Website. Accessed January 2, 2018. http://www.endcorporalpunish

ment.org.

———. 2015a. Legal Defences for Corporal Punishment of Children Derived from

English Law. London: Global Initiative.

270 social research

———. 2015b. The Positive Impact of Prohibition of Corporal Punishment on

Children’s Lives: Messages from Research. London: Global Initiative.

———. 2015c. “States Actively Pursuing the Issue of Corporal Punishment

of Children in the Universal Periodic Review: Analysis of Sessions

1–22 (2008–2015).” Paper provided to the author by the Global

Initiative.

———. 2016. Corporal Punishment of Children: Review of Research on its Impact

and Associations. Working paper. London: Global Initiative.

———. 2017. Prohibiting all Corporal Punishment of Children: Answers to

Frequently Asked Questions, London: Global Initiative.

Gracia, E. and Herrero, J. 2008. “Is It Considered Violence? The

Acceptability of Physical Punishment of Children in Europe.”

Journal of Marriage and Family 70: 210–17.

Harris Poll. 2013. “Four in Five Americans Believe Parents Spanking

Their Children Is Sometimes Appropriate.” Accessed October

22, 2017. http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/Four_in_

Five_Americans_Believe_Parents_Spanking_Their_Children_is_

Sometimes_Appropriate.html.

Holden, G. W., P. A. Williamson, and G. W. Holland. 2014. “Eavesdropping

on the Family: A Pilot Investigation of Corporal Punishment in the

Home.” Journal of Family Psychology 28 (3): 401–6.

International Labour Organization (ILO). 2017. Ending Child Labour by 2025:

A Review of Policies and Programmes. Geneva: ILO.

Janson, S. 2000. Children and Abuse—Corporal Punishment and Other Forms

of Child Abuse in Sweden at the End of the Second Millennium: A Scientific

Report Prepared for the Committee on Child Abuse and Related Issues.

Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.

Mackie, Gerry and John LeJeune. 2009. “Social Dynamics of Abandonment

of Harmful Practices: A New Look at the Theory.” Innocenti Working

Paper. Florence: UNICEF.

Newell, Peter. 2015. Interview by Jo Becker, November 10.

Pfeiffer, Christian. 2013. “Parallel Justice—Why Do We Need Stronger

Support for the Victim in Society?” Address at the 18th German

Congress on Crime Prevention, April 23. Accessed August 16,

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms 271

2017. http://www.praeventionstag.de/dokumentation/download.

cms?id=1471.

Shell-Duncan, Bettina, Ylva Hernlaund, Katherine Wander, and Amadou

Moreau. 2013. “Legislating Change? Responses to Criminalization

of Female Genital Cutting in Senegal.” Law and Society Review 47:

803–35.

Trifan, Tatiana Alina, Hakan Stattin, and Lauree Tilton-Weaver. 2014.

“Have Authoritarian Parenting Practices and Roles Changed in the

Last 50 Years?” Journal of Marriage and Family 76: 744–61.

UNICEF. 2003. A League Table of Child Maltreatment Deaths in Rich Nations.

Florence: Innocenti Research Center.

———. 2014. Hidden in Plain Sight: A Statistical Analysis of Violence against

Children. New York: UNICEF.

US Department of Health and Human Services. 2017. “Child Abuse and

Neglect Fatalities 2015: Statistics and Interventions.” Washington,

DC: HHS.

Wood, Beth. 2011. “A Report from New Zealand: Four Years Post Law

Change.” Paper presented to the Global Summit on Ending

Corporal Punishment of Children, Dallas Texas. Accessed October

22, 2017. http://epochnz.org.nz/images/stories/pdfs/NZ_4_year_%20

post_law_change.pdf.

———. 2015. Telephone interview by Jo Becker, November 29.

Wood, Beth, Ian Hassall, George Hook, and Robert Ludbrook. 2008.

Unreasonable Force: New Zealand’s Journey towards Banning the Physical

Punishment of Children. Wellington: Save the Children New Zealand.

Copyright of Social Research is the property of Johns Hopkins University Press 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.