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! 👇

The law already covers this—any form of physical punishment that causes harm, leaves a mark, or is excessive is already illegal. The issue isn’t about needing a smacking ban; it’s about addressing deeper cultural and societal attitudes toward discipline.

I think the government should focus on educating communities rather than pushing blanket bans that do little to solve the real problem. Some communities still normalize escalating punishment, believing control comes through fear. This is where intervention is needed—helping parents understand that discipline doesn’t mean humiliation, fear, or force.

Children who grow up in fear either rebel, flee into dangerous environments, or continue the cycle of violence in their own relationships. Instead of wasting resources policing light smacking, the government should invest in parenting education, support programs, and early intervention—targeting the places where outdated, harmful discipline practices are still being passed down.

OPs posts seem like faulty AI, or rage bait, or possibly just very uneducated on child development. Most likely rage bait.

This is clearly your issue isn't it OP? If you think it's smacking your child or drawing a picture to discuss that indicates that you're parenting isn't up to scratch.

Most of us can enforce boundaries without hitting their children.

Agree! Obviously has some parenting issues.

No. It will make no difference to those things as they're already illegal. It should be banned because it's utterly unacceptable in it's own right.

Protecting kids and helping the smacker by giving them pause for thought about their actions and state of mind.

Regarding England’s stance, the current law already prohibits physical punishment that causes harm, making a full ban arguably unnecessary. Many other countries have moved past this debate, yet in England, discussions are often reignited due to political rhetoric rather than genuine need for reform. While some argue a ban is progressive, others see it as government overreach, diverting attention from real child protection issues.

It’s sad that some parents have such poor self control that we need legislation to protect these children from their parents.

It seems extraordinary to me that it is ever reasonable to do something to a child that would be considered a criminal offence if you did it to an adult.

Some people shouldn’t be parents.

Hitting doesn't have to leave a mark to cause harm.

That's already acknowledged through other parts of law- I.e common assault.

Smacking gives children "fear of violence" whether it leaves a mark or not.

I don't believe in smacking dc, however I did smack ds's legs once when he was about 4.
He lost a welly crossing a busy road . I put him onto the pavement and I told him to stand still whilst I retrieved the welly.
Suddenly he ran into the road to get his welly.
I grabbed him and just smacked his leg, once, not hard.
I don't to this day know why i smacked him. I assume it was shock and relief.
What I did was wrong but ds, an adult now , has no memory of the incident.
I can still see it clearly.
So am I a child abuser and all the other nasty things described on this thread?

I think many pp's have had the luxury of being raised in a calm environment with good parents.
I didn't get that. My one aberration pales against the frequent hitting and punching in the back that was dealt to me as a dc.
Not to use it as an excuse but more to show what I had modelled to me growing up.
It's not easy to be a good parent when you have no good example to follow.

@Millymoonshine no one is calling you in particular an abuser. I have a lot more respect for people who did it as a one off and then realised the error of their ways as you did.

The OP isn't in that camp. They think smacking is acceptable and shouldn't be banned.

And I for one didn't grow up in a nice environment as you described and have good examples of parenting. I was smacked hence why I don't do it to my own children.

You’re not an abuser but you lost control of yourself . You’re obviously aware of that and now setting good examples to your DC’s to model for future generations.

I think the present law is enough. I think other areas need attention though.

An outright ban actually cuts out a lot of the bullshit (cultural norms, differences in parenting styles-especially in family courts, asking a myriad of questions and so on).

Harm isn't just physical either , psychological and emotional harm can be just as damaging as a bruise. Sometimes more , because there's no physical proof so no one believes it or takes it seriously.

The law is already very clear—any physical punishment that causes harm or leaves a mark is illegal. A full ban may provide additional clarity, but as you rightly point out, the real issue is the abuse happening behind closed doors.

This is where the focus needs to be—on identifying and preventing serious harm, which can be physical (bruises, injuries) or mental/emotional (fear, shame, trauma)rather than adding more bureaucracy to minor cases. The real challenge is ensuring that truly vulnerable children don’t slip through the cracks while resources are stretched dealing with cases that don’t involve genuine abuse. Strengthening early intervention, education, and support for struggling families would do far more to protect children than a blanket ban alone.

So you support hitting so long as there isn’t a mark?

So you’re ok with hitting/snacking so long as there isn’t a mark? Why would anyone abuse their children?

Yes, it’s extremely sad— not just for parenting, but for the human race as a whole— that we need so many laws simply to protect ourselves from one another. It speaks volumes about our inability to exercise self-control, compassion, and basic respect without legal intervention.

The law is already very clear—any physical punishment that causes harm or leaves a mark is illegal. A full ban may provide additional clarity, but as you rightly point out, the real issue is the abuse happening behind closed doors.

You are ignoring the fact that "common assault" exists as an offence and this doesn't even have to include physical contact let alone leaving a mark- all it needs is "fear of violence". It can also include physical contact that doesn't leave a mark.

If this offence exists and is applied to situations where adults are assaulted without leaving a mark- in what way does it make sense to say it's okay to hit children and not leave a mark?

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.

Sums it up for me. My parents were curiously soft on other types of punishment. I remember my brother being very badly behaved one weekend and not being allowed to go to a party - I remember being thoroughly amazed because that kind of thing just never happened in our house.

Much easier to lash out in anger and then act as if none of it had ever happened.

You’re on a hiding to nothing with this ridiculous thread.

Maybe the criminal justice system wouldn’t be so overwhelmed if adults weren’t violent to others. Maybe some even learned violence at home. There are other non-violent ways to communicate with children. I support a ban.

Is smacking without leaving a mark really violent? The law already covers this—if a smack leaves a mark, it’s illegal. So why waste time on a ban that changes nothing?

And as for your examples—were these children smacked, abused, or just exposed to violent video games and movies? There’s a big difference between discipline and real harm. If smacking automatically led to violence, every previous generation would have been criminals. The real issue is broken families, lack of discipline (not just smacking), and a culture that glorifies violence.

For me the opposition to the ban just doesn't hold water and I'm afraid I do doubt the intentions of anyone who claims they oppose it for the greater good.

For a start, I'm not aware of any evidence that criminalising smacking diverts attention or resources away from severe neglect and abuse. It strikes me as extremely distasteful to evoke the cases of children who are beaten, starved, raped etc to justify opposition to the smacking ban, when we all know full well that as a society we have always failed those children. They weren't all being helped before the smacking ban. It isn't the smacking ban that prevents severely abused children from being saved.

Secondly the idea that it's fine as long as it doesn't leave a mark is just... difficult to argue against because it's hard to believe that anyone would actually openly admit to holding that view. I wonder if you would support the decriminalisation of assault if for example a husband was hitting his wife but leaving no marks. Or a carer hitting an elderly care home resident but not leaving bruises. Perhaps that would be OK too. And if not, why not? Why is it materially different or worse for a vulnerable adult to endure this treatment than it is for a child?

More broadly, the idea the idea that we shouldn't criminalise one act because it diverts resources away from tackling more serious crime is problematic. Should we decriminalise pick pocketing because it diverts resources away from tackling muggings? Should we decriminalise assaults not resulting in hospitalisation because it diverts resources away from tackling murders?