Smacking Ban – Protecting Kids or Criminalizing Parents? What Do You Think?

[Scoobychick]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to start a discussion about the smacking ban and whether it’s truly helping children—or just making parenting even harder.

I completely support protecting children from harm, but I believe this law is misguided and potentially damaging to families. Instead of tackling real abuse and neglect, the government has criminalized responsible parents who use occasional smacking as discipline.

🔹 Are we focusing on the wrong problem?
🔹 Should the government be prioritizing real child protection failures instead?
🔹 Does this law take away too much parental authority?

Many parents already struggle to set boundaries, especially with the growing influence of social media and peer pressure. Now, with this law, some fear that even light discipline could lead to social services intervention. Meanwhile, children in truly abusive situations continue to fall through the cracks because agencies are overwhelmed or ineffective.

💬 What do you think? Share your thoughts below!
📊 Vote in the poll too! 👇

@WinterMorn People will argue 'I would never do that, it's only ever a light tap'

Right - that will work with an 9 year old.

It's either an ineffective tool past toddlerhood or you have to increase the pain and or humiliation.

Of course shame and humiliation is great because it doesn't leave a visible mark, that's internal.

@user1471538275 I totally understand. It’s massively impacted my relationship with my mother.

I think it’s pointless. Abusers have no regard for the law other than to ensure that their abuse is not discovered.

banning smacking will not change the fate of abused children.

I work in MH and so work with childhood trauma all the time.

There is quite a distance between smacking a child and drawing a picture and discussing. You are implying that good parents smack and flakey parents discuss and draw a picture. Quite offensive. What about those of us who set clear boundaries for our children; discipline ourselves to say 'no' calmly, time and time again; sometimes shout and regret it; insist our children sit by themselves for 10 minutes to bring the temperature down; withhold privileges in the face of unacceptable behaviour? There are many of us, and we turn out interesting, resilient, well mannered young adults.

It will, as then there is no opportunity for the legal chastisement defense to be used

Of course not

There are many ways to discipline a child, without hitting them, which just teaches them to use violence themselves to get what they want.

I suggest you take some parenting classes, if you think they only involve drawing a picture.

No it wont affect the extremes but might make life a bit easier for many other children that don't come into contact with SS.

We shouldn't still be debating this in 2025, 35 years after corporal punishment was outlawed in schools. My parents never smacked my brother and me. My paternal grandmother, born in 1884, did. On a weekly visit to see her, my dad left the room. In his absence, my granny smacked my brother, aged two, across the back of the legs. 'What's he done?' asked my dad, returning from the bathroom. 'Nothing,' She replied. 'It's good for him.' We now know it is never good. The law should have changed years ago.

I haven't read all the comments but no it should not be banned. The arguments for banning it are trite and under thought. I couldnt deal with all of the reasons, so I'll focus on the idea that there can be a time and place for a smack.
We have an absolute epidemic of kids in this country who have no respect for authority and they're growing up miserable. Kids thrive with boundaries and clear lines in the sand, and sometimes ,with some kids, smacking is the easiest and most effective way to deal with an issue. And it doesn't do lasting harm when given to a child who understands exactly why it's happening and who was forewarned. The studies never take this context into account. This is why the generations of kids who received it in this context are fine, but the 'studies show..'
Its hard to stand up to the 'I could never hit a child' brigade, but if I believed the consequences of not smacking my child were that they grew up with no boundaries or respect, and would go down paths of real harm, I absolutely would. Same way I'd give them a vaccine. The point is to prevent a worse harm- not to somehow get some gratification from punishment!!
It's a very difficult topic to discuss, and nobody wants to put their neck on the line and say I do it and this is why, and I respect that because your kids shouldn't need the world to know what goes on in their private lives. But I hope the government recognise that this should not be a soundbite debate.

Most of me is fine with the ban, or just removing exceptions under current laws. Reasonable force will still be legal, as it is for use against adults and children.

Part of me has concerns it's going to end up where we're already having with coercive and controlling behaviour where the law had good intents and it has many benefits to help victims of abuse, but we're also seeing a push for it that has resulted in bringing the criminal justice system into difficult divorces in ways it was never intended, often dragging children into criminal court proceeding that they never should have to deal with, cross examinations they shouldn't have to deal with, because one parent wants to use the law as a weapon against the other parent. I think we need more care in how this is managed.

if I believed the consequences of not smacking my child were that they grew up with no boundaries or respect, and would go down paths of real harm, I absolutely would.

Do you believe that?

That we pathologize things more now than we did back then doesn't mean that suffering is new or unique. There have been issues of opioid abuse that been going on for decades. We had songs written about mother's little helper drugs to help miserable mothers back when hitting kids was openly encouraged. People have discussed the misery in life and the disrespectfulness of kids for many centuries.

And I'm not in the 'I could never..." group. I have the capacity for violence. I'm in the "My kids are all stronger than me" group, one who has always known my kids would end up bigger and stronger than me. I've long kept it in mind. I remember when my brother realised he was bigger and stronger than our mother. He ended up down a path of real harm, drugs, jail, house arrest, losing his education (excluded from all schools in our area), terrible relationships, terrible relationships, it took him a while to figure out boundaries again when we'd been raised in might makes respect, might means you make the boundaries.

Smacking will fail one day, it's inevitable - our children grow stronger and we eventually grow weaker. However easy and effective, you need a plan for clear lines and respect when you can no longer maintain the appearance of respect with a smack.

Interesting spelling. Are you in the UK OP?

What behaviour justifies hitting a child?

In this post you have unwittingly encapsulated the key problem with parents who smack - they invariably lack any real behaviour management skills, they don't bother to learn about effective, non-abusive disciplinary strategies, because violence is the only tool in their belt. Smacking children is always wrong, always harmful, and any parent still defending it in 2025 is either thick, vicious or very, very lazy.

Agree

We are way behind the rest of Europe (with I think the exception of Czechia) on this. Smacking should be banned, no question about it. Having taught in schools I can tell you the children with the most difficult behaviour are often those that are smacked - yep I've had parents (mums actually) threated their kid with a smack if they don't behave for me. I promise you it didn't work.

I was smacked a few times and the last thing it did was make me want to be a good kid. I wasn't traumatised but i was resentful and it made me want to be more sneaky and get my own back. It might appear to work in the short term but it's just lazy, crap parenting and is definitely not a long term solution to bad behaviour. If the only way to control your child is with a smack then what chance has a teacher who can't smack got?

Kids absolutely thrive with boundaries of course but smacking is not the appropriate way to instill them. The children who behave badly aren't doing that because they're not hit enough, they're not going to be nicer, better behaved kids if only they'd been smacked more.

The problems with poor behaviour are due to poorly supervised children who are not having the time and effort put in to teaching them good behaviour all through their childhood, who also have free internet access and free access to SM.

Kids/teens need a lot of time and effort putting into them and smacking is not a short cut to that.

This was a hard read. It saddens me to think there are parents out there that are unable to set boundaries and discipline their children without resorting to hurting their kids. The ban is 100% correct but I think many parents need education and help too, like this poster demonstrates

I have no idea what you mean by this^^
I support a complete ban.
Hitting a child is always wrong.
Children need boundaries, but that in no way equates to a 'need' to hit a child.

My experience with smacked vs non smacked kids has been the opposite to what posters describe. Nobody is talking about children who automatically do no wrong, but the smack does then act as a deterrent and doesn’t need to be used. In older years it wouldn’t be effective anyway- of course parents need to have a tool box up their sleeve. But when I say o have seen it work, I am speaking of parents who use it in the way I describe, and not as an empty threat or indeed when it’s no longer effective. And indeed I am educated on pedagogy actually… I have a degree in it. It’s really not a lack of education, it is a difference of opinion.
It is disingenuous to suggest that children who were smacked as children resent their parents for it. The majority don’t. When it was done in the way I describe then most knew what it was for!
Someone asked for an example. A child finds it funny to run away from parent and buggy when out and about. Child is warned they will get a smack if they keep doing it. Child does it again. Child gets smacked, Child cries. Child doesn’t run away from the buggy.
Of course you can suggest you have better ways to deal with this, what if the child didn’t understand, what if the smack didn’t work, etc. I’m not denying any of that. I am absolutely denying that, in the example above, the parent acted in a way that should be illegal. They clearly had the well-being of the child at heart and I think criminalising that is absolutely non-sensical. What’s the proposed remedy for a parent in such a situation? I’d argue none, certainly that was what was bleated on the campaign trail in Scotland on this issue. The damage to a child of being removed from such parents is immeasurably greater than the damage of the smack. That is statistically unquestionable, and that’s where we have to see the problem. It should be realised that without that possibility, the ban is meaningless, other than to attempt to correct wrongthink. Abusive cases are already protected from, and it’s not that social workers have the time to be chasing up parents who do smack for discipline. It’s taking resources away from real abuse cases, where children ARE safer away from mum and dad, and where we need to be ensuring they get the protection from society they need.
The question is not, do you think people should smack? It’s - do you think it should be a criminal offence? If you think it should be criminalised, I’m the scenario I describe above, please suggest to me what punishment you think is fit for the offenders.
It’s important to note that people mention being behind Europe on this… I’d also point out we are out of kilter with the rest of the world on this. We’ve moved past the age of white man knows best!

Assaulting a child by smacking or hitting has been illegal in Scotland for some time. There are many effective ways to discipline a child without being violent towards them. The studies I’ve read have shown that children who are smacked or hit are more likely to bully and hit other children.

England is lagging behind the many countries who have banned child assault.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002175571400031X

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/hitting-kids-american-parenting-and-physical-punishment/

This argument was used to ensure it was legal to rape your wife, it was also used to support the need for men to physically assault their wives. I hope you also enjoy it when your partner feels their is a time and a place for assault, as surely you wouldn’t be the type of person who thinks they should have the right to assault, and the right to be protected from assault.

Violence never stops a child misbehaving.

In England and Northern Ireland, while certain forms of physical punishment are still legally permissible under the defense of "reasonable chastisement," there are strict limitations. Any punishment that results in visible bruising, wounding, or other forms of actual bodily harm is illegal. Parents exceeding these boundaries can face criminal charges, and social services may become involved to protect the child's welfare.

@Nighttimenope when DD went through a phase of trying to run off, I held her hand and told her very clearly that if she ran off we would be going home and she wouldn’t get to do the fun thing we were on our way to do. When she tried to run off, I picked her up and we went home, she soon learned that running off meant she didn’t get to do what she wanted.

She’s 10yo now and I’ve never felt any need to hit her, just like I’ve never felt any need to hit my husband, when he didn’t do what I asked him to do, or my co-workers/employees when they didn’t do what I asked them to do, or my pets when they mis-behaved.

Are We Focusing on the Wrong Laws?

Is smacking that doesn’t leave a visible mark truly considered violence? Many people may not fully understand the laws already in place regarding child discipline. Instead of pushing new laws on smacking, shouldn’t we be prioritizing legislation to protect children who are seriously abused, neglected, or even killed due to government failures?

Children who have lost their childhood, been disfigured, maimed, or killed deserve stronger protections. Yet, while ordinary people can be charged with aiding and abetting if they knowingly stand by and do nothing, government bodies face no such accountability when they fail to act on clear evidence of child abuse. Why is this acceptable?

Where is the reform of social services? One child is killed each week in the UK due to abuse or neglect. In 2019, there were 73,260 recorded sexual offences against children. In 2023/24, police recorded 26,299 child cruelty and neglect offences—a shocking reminder that the real crisis is not discipline but systemic failures in child protection.

Instead of criminalizing parents for minor disciplinary actions, we should be demanding accountability from government agencies that repeatedly fail to protect vulnerable children.

It’s time to focus on real solutions.