Would you ban smacking? Take our two-question-takes-less-than-10-seconds poll (and be entered into this week's comp)

[carriemumsnet]

Tomorrow Parliament will debate whether to outlaw smacking completely. The current law allows parents (and some carers) to discipline children using "reasonable punishment" but outlaws punishment that leaves physical marks or causes mental harm. The last attempt to impose a full ban on smacking was defeated in 2004 .

We've put together a quick (and we mean quick) two question poll to see what Mumsnetters think about this and will hopefully be able to make your views known to the world first thing tomorrow.

For more info on the story click here

Everyone who takes part in the poll will be entered into this week's competitions to win one of 3 sets of Walker picture books worth £100 each, a week's luxury ski accommodation in France or one of 4 Fisher-Price doll and stroller sets. For more info on comp prizes click here

And just in case you need the poll link again it's here

Once you've done the poll please add your views on the subject here (as if mumsnetters need any encouragement to make their views known ).

Thanks

MNHQ

It's is illegal for men to hit their wives, for staff to hit elderly people in nursing homes, for carers to hit handicapped people, for a stranger to hit you in a pub, for a Dr or nurse to hit a weak patient. I don't think anyone would question those laws.

Why then is it OK for us to smack our children?

Twinklestar's post makes perfect sense to me. If you hit a child (however hard or for whatever reason), you are teaching them that hitting is an appropriate way to resolve an issue. They will then do it to other children, or you, or teachers. And you will only have yourself to blame.

twinklelittlestar i totally agree with you no one needs to smack there children ever
i have 7 children oldest 22 youngest 3 months so ive done the tennager years the terrible 2,s and so on
i wouldnt condemn thise parents mothers now though for there light taps there is a world of difference in how they those grown up children feel now to those who were abused

my own mother used to say to me when exasperated do you want me to smack you or a good hiding if you dont stop it a samck was a slap round the face and a good hiding was brutally beaten on head back of leags everywhere with the hard bit on a hairbrush
needles to say i hate my mother i have no relationship whatsoever with her and will not ever let her near my children
i recieved this severe beating for telling her on the advise of my teacher that my father was sexually abusing me i was 5 years old
they eventually took me into care at 11 years old but the damage was done
i dont mean to give you guys a life history just merely to point out i think we all have our own reasons for either being so anti smacking or all for a light tap
smacking doesnt show patience or control but just because you have tapped the hand lightly doesn not make you a monster or child abuser we are all human and have emotions
if my mother had just smacked my hand i would be a different person today instead i campaign for childrens rights and work for the NSPCC and am a rape counsellor
and i cant tell you no one has ever come to me with a serious emotion of please help me my parents have smacked my hand
if only that were it !!!!

apologies didnt preview should of said

no one has ever come to me with issues of a slapped hand ever

this ban is trying to protect the millions that are abused not the loving mothers thats give a light tap
child beatings are very very real this ban is trying to protect them
do you know how hard or for how long the child has to suffer before the police can act or are the bruises so bad to be identified as beatings or did he fall down the stairs
its not about you guys its time to get it stopped

and if I'm honest - on the rare occasion when I have smacked DS (and been deeply ashamed and more than a little upset about it) it has made me a better parent ultimately. It made me much more understanding of my fallability and develop strategies to cope better next time and given me a short sharp shock.

He doesn't remember being smacked but I remember it and have learnt from it.

I might not be as perfect a parent as you twinkle but please don't start talking about attachement problems when I suspect that you have little understanding of the real issues involved which have no bearing on this debate. To say that anyone who has ever smacked their child must have attachment issues really undermines your attempt at a reasonable argument.

disneystar - why do you think that anything more than a smack on the hand wouldn;t be covered under the current "rteasonable punishement" guideline?

All that needs to be done is to issue a guideline to social services, schools, police courts etc as to what constitutes "reasonable punishment" or at least some examples when other factors are present.

There are situations when it is permissable to hit another adult.

LittleMy and Puzzlerocks - thank you for two very sane posts!

Twinkle - I hope you can see that your sweeping generalisations (everyone who's ever smacked their child is a vicious bully who has failed to bond with said child) are as ludicrous in their own way as the idea that regular smacks will teach children to behave.

I personally belive that shouting at children is abusive and offensive - but that is just my opinion, and is helped by the fact that I only lose my temper about once every 10 years!

Parents have to use whatever they feel it takes to turn their children into reasonable adults. Some children are easy and never really need any more than gentle correction. Others are hideously difficult (I know - I have them at both ends of the spectrum). Parents themselves are not all the same: some have short fuses; others don't.

I do dislike the idea that you could have a bolshy 7-y-o reporting his/her parents to a teacher for a light smack if/when it becomes illegal!

"It's is illegal for men to hit their wives, for staff to hit elderly people in nursing homes, for carers to hit handicapped people, for a stranger to hit you in a pub, for a Dr or nurse to hit a weak patient. I don't think anyone would question those laws."
Of course it is.
If you're a doctor or nurse or carer, there's generally no excuse for you ever snapping or losing it. If you can't keep your patience at all times and guarantee to be 100% non-violent during working hours you should not be in one of those jobs.
Being a parent is somewhat different. You are on duty all the time, not just 8 or 12 hours during your shift. You can't change your child to an easier one if it transpires you have ended up with a child you can't manage. You have no-one to call for back-up if the child becomes violent. If you could only be a parent if you were 100% certain you would remain patient and fully in control at all times, the world population would be pretty small.
There are reasons for cutting a little more slack to parents who lose it under those circs than to carers or doctors.

I always said I would never smack a child before I had children.

I do smack DD1 occasionally because her behaviour can be appalling and it is the only thing I have found which stops the behaviour right now. I worry that it will teach her to hit is OK, but as far as I know she has never hit another child. It's probably my bad parenting that causes her behaviour, but then why does DD2 behave (never had to smack her)? I've come to the conclusion that parents who never smack probably have very easy children.

As for people who say 'it's illegal to hit an adult so it should be illegal to hit a child', I say that you can't have equal rights without equal repsonsibilities. Are we going to prosecute a toddler for assault? Obviously not. As parents we are told constantly that our children are out of control and badly behaved, then we are told we can't punish them. If I'd found a punishment that works better on DD1, believe me I'd be using it.

Nightingale - I have come to that conclusion, too!!!

Oh god felt so guilty there doing the questions!

No I wouldn't ban smacking and yes I have smacked my child but not particularly smacked IYKWIM more of a tap on the hand/bum of my 2YO DS if he is doing something really bad that could harm him. Although I don't do it regularly just if he's having a day of not listening to me when I explain to him not to do something 40
times in 5 minutes.

But on the other hand I definately don't agree with people using alot of force on their children but abusive parents tend to stick to doing it in private so what exactly can be done about it? Nothing so there isn't any point in banning it.

OK, we all get stressed and lose our temper at times, but can't you see the logic of the statement that if you hit your child, they will in turn hit other people? Children learn by example. You hear your children repeating your words and see them repeating your actions. Does it not bother people that their children may hit other children (and adults) if that is what they've been taught to do?

Kathy - clearly you have never worked in A&E, where you get spat on, vomited on, bled on, verbally abused, shouted at, complained about and generally treated like a piece of rubbish much of the time. The temptation to slap an aggressive abusive frequent-attending urine-sodden drunk, waving a bottle around and telling you you're a frigid bitch because you won't snog him, is far greater than the temptation to smack a disobedient toddler, believe me! Both situations require calm patience and restraint. Neither require physical violence.

I am anti-smacking because I don't believe it is an effective diciplinary tool. Before I had children I always said that that I would never smack because there are other methods of disciplining a child. However I have smacked ds on three occasions. I do not regret smacking him on the first two occasions but I do regret the third occasion and will explain why.

First time, ds about 2.6 generally being a bit of pain in the supermarket because I had refused him a kinder egg. We get to the till and ds somehow summoned super toddler strength and lobbed a bottle of wine across the store narrowingly missing an old lady. I was shocked and instinctively chastised him and smacked him on the bottom.

Second time, ds a couple of months later we are returning from a shopping trip, I am laden down with shopping bags and finding it hard to control ds. We get to main road and I ask ds to grab hold of my arm to cross the road, he refuses and runs across the road. I drop my shopping bags, pull him back and smack him on the bottom.

Third time, I am on the telephone to the bank trying to sort out our finances (urgent because we can't meet that months mortgage payment) 2 days before I had received news that my sister had breast cancer and I am feeling like someone has kicked the stuffing out of me. Ds is demanding my attention and I can hardly hear the person I am talking to on the other end of the telephone. Next thing I know is I am feel a thud to the head and realise that ds has hit me over the head with a china mug. I end the phone call and smack him on the bottom.

I have never smacked ds since because he is now 4 and I feel that he is to old to be chastised in this way. The naughty step and stopping pocket money are very effective now. To be honest I hardly even need to resort to these measures as he is a delightful child.

Recently ds lashed out at me because he was frustrated over something, I told him off and said "we don't have hitting in this house" to which he replied "well you smacked me when I hit you over the head with that cup when I was 2!" I think that this had stuck in his head because I burst into tears at the time. It made me realise that on that occasion I had smacked him because I was frustrated and that was wrong. I apologised to him for smacking him 18 months earlier and I reitrated that smacking/hitting is against the rules for all of us.

Now if smacking became illegal would I be fined for those occasions, forced to go on parenting classes? I believe that either of those possibilities would be unnecessary and unacceptable. What about parents who say awful things to their children and constantly undermine them? Or fail to provide their children with a healthy diet or a stimulating environment? I think the government are barking up the wrong tree.

Also when you smack a child on the bottom, you are not actually hurting them are you? If you were making the child feel physical pain then obviously that would be wrong. When I smacked ds I applied no more pressure then when I playfully shoo him up the stairs to bed.

The NSPCC and the government could be doing so much to protect children and yet they choose to pursue this which frankly is a waste of time. Feckless/neglectful parents won't care whether smacking is illegal will they?

Sorry for the essay!

Er, no I haven't worked in A&E.... I'm well aware of how people are treated there, have great respect for the people who do it, and it is clear the one of the requirements to manage to do that job is greater than average self-control. I am one of the majority of people that probably couldn't do that job. We ask (and get) amazingly high standards from medics and carers in such situations. They are standards which it would be unrealistic to expect from EVERBODY who wants to be a parent. That is my point.

You do seem to have an oversimplistic view of the causal relationship between children smacking and their parents smacking. Most of us know many many kids who hit other kids but were not hit themselves, or people who were hit but would never hit a soul. Of course being hit makes you more likely to hit in turn, but to say as you have that 'x causes y' is rather naive - there are many other factors.

Rachel, I can see the logic, of course I can. But I'm not sure it is actually as simple and as straightforward a relationship as that.

Children learn not just about behaviour from us but also about when behaviour is appropriate and when it is not. They learn that taking all your clothes off in your own home is appropriate, whereas taking them all off in the centre of town is not.

In the same way, we can teach them that a smack on the hand when they've been naughty from Mummy or Daddy is appropriate behaviour, whereas them hitting their friend for taking their toy away is not. Children learn lots of these lessons every day - grown ups are in a different role than their peers, and they learn that grown ups are allowed to punish (naughty step, smacking, teacher telling them off, whatever) whereas children are not. Would you allow your child to send you to your room if you'd shouted at them?

There's lots of anecdotal evidence on this thread of people who have been smacked as children who have grown up to be happy, well adjusted human beings with no violent tendencies. I haven't yet seen a single shred of evidence that smacking in the context of a loving, supportive parent-child relationship produces violent children/adults.

If anything, levels of violence in our society and particularly our young people are increasing, while our society frowns more and more on corporal punishment. An interesting contradiction, wouldn't you say?

LittleMy - I like your posts.

Forever - I would probably have smacked my DS in the first two instances, too. I have smacked my DS in a situation similar to your third one (though without the breast cancer as a mitigating factor) and, like you, regretted it very much.

I think yours are the kinds of situation in which the vast majority of caring, loving, non-abusive parents will find themselves at some point!

Thanks Dottoressa

How do we know a smacking ban would work? There is evidence to suggest that the ban in Sweden has not been a success:

Report Here.

A summary here:

"There has been a major increase in the rate of child abuse in Sweden since all forms of physical correction were banned in 1979, according to a paper published today by family advocacy group, Families First.

The author, Dr Robert Larzelere, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center highlights data which shows a 489% increase in physical child abuse cases classified as criminal assaults in Sweden between 1981 and 1994. Dr Larzelere also notes that while the number of assaults on children under the age of 7 remained low and relatively stable, "perpetration of criminal assaults against 7-14 year-olds is increasing most rapidly among those who were brought up after the law against smacking was passed."

The publication of these findings will come as a blow to anti-smacking campaigners in Britain who frequently hail Sweden's ban on smacking as an unqualified success. Last year, for example, Save the Children published a paper by Canadian researcher Joan Durrant, which presented the Swedish legislation in a glowing light and recommended it as a model to other nations throughout the world.

However, Dr Larzelere believes that a careful review of Durrant's findings reveals that her conclusions reflect her "unconditional commitment to an anti-smacking perspective more than an objective appraisal of the data available from her sources." He concludes that there is a need for "timely, rigorous and unbiased evaluations" of the impact of the 1979 anti-smacking law. Contrary to the claims of the various 'children's rights' groups, the data does not provide any basis for viewing Sweden's legislation as worthy of emulation. In fact, the evidence available so far is pointing in the opposite direction."

From HERE

I would have expected there to be a significant rise in figures once the ban came into force. Surely the fact that it is illegal means that more cases that would previously had been ignored are now being reported.

The fact that there is a rise does not necessarily mean that it is actually happening more, just that it is being legally recognised.

Any half-decent research would take that into account, and given that it says assaults on under 7s remained stable it does seem to have done so.
So if this research is reliable (and who knows....) it would mean that kids who aren't smacked grow up to smack their own older, but not younger, kids. How bizarre. Why on earth would that be?

This is such an important issue that there wasn't even time to debate this issue in the commons and has once again failed...

Very good. Sanity has prevailed.

I don't do physical violence, let alone against my little girl
because in my experience there is always a much more effective
alternative (or ten) to brute force.

Brains over brawn, every time.

However, it would have been ludicrous and irresponsible to criminalise many ordinary parents
and divert precious police/social services resources away from protecting children
who are subject to real, sustained abuse and neglect.
Glad the government and the opposition didn't allow that to happen.

So MNHQ, what's the result of the poll?

Although i am glad there is no outright bad I would not say "sanity has prevailed".

Sanity would have been to allow our elected representatives to debate the issue and come to an informed conclusion.

It does not say much for parliamentary democracy when the Government can timetable business so that a topic which many real people are interested in, and would be effected by, is not even debated after an amendment has been tabled.

I agree artichokes, but I think by the sounds of it they have some more important aspects of the Children's Act to debate which overran. there's always going to have be prioritisation in parliament or they'd never go home, and it wasn't a bill with a lot of support (28 MPs, I think?), so I can see why it got bumped.

Unless Sweden is a very worrying country, the fact that there was a 489% increase in "child physical abuse cases classified as criminal assult" goes against what many people on here seem to be assuming: that passing a ban on smacking would not affect 'ordinary, decent parents' who use a smack as a form of discipline with their child. These people would be prosecuted.

yes, that's a massive increase, isn't it? it is rather worrying, whichever way you look at it.