Editor’s Note:
In order to refute the anti-spanking advocates, it is important to have the actual facts. Fortunately, an objective analysis of the spanking issue was published in a book, in 2014, entitled: Corporal Punishment: is it effective? written by Harold Hoff. Below is a review of his book:
Book Review
Corporal Punishment: Is it Effective?
An empirical study of school punishment records.
By: Harold A. Hoff
Published by Iron Gate Research, 2014, pages 283 Cost: CDN$ 25.00
Spanking Our Children
This book reviews the spanking issue in Canada. It discusses a wide range of methods used to improve children’s behaviour, from time-outs and spanking, to incarceration for juvenile crime. These methods have been applied to deal with anti-social and socially destructive behaviour as well as dangerous, cruel and even life threatening behaviour.
The book is technical, and the author, Harold Hoff, avoids recommending any specific method of discipline. He just sets out the facts. He refers to studies which show that parental corporal punishment (CP) i.e. spanking, is more effective than other methods such as exclusion and confinement. Spanking will be ineffective, if used too frequently, or if the intensity of it increases so that it risks causing harm (although unintended), to children. It is most effective when first applied, and works best when used infrequently. It is also the most effective method of disciplining a child when violent offences occur.
The author reminds us that today, every society functions almost exclusively on a deterrence-based punitive system, such as fines, sanctions, penalties, incarceration. These are all designed to deter unacceptable behaviours, to establish civil order, and for the safe functioning of society. Spanking is another method of deterrence.
The book is very sensible, unbiased and judicious in its consideration of all perspectives. The author is wary of false claims and is respectful of the scientific approach to disciplining children. He addresses the issue of corporal punishment at three levels: the family, the schools and the culture at large.
Parental Discipline
At the level of the family, the author does not advocate parents spank their children as he believes that corporal punishment (CP) should not be a first line, or typical response to misbehaviour. Rather, it should be used for constructive discipline in a measured, tempered manner, in a loving, thoughtful process, with the primary concern being the welfare and improvement of the child, not the relief of anger or frustration of the parent. There is no “one size fits all” approach to dealing with unacceptable behaviour, as every child and teenager is different, and this requires that the discipline method be adapted to the child and the circumstances.
Mr. Hoff, however, does refute the claim by anti spanking enthusiasts that all physical discipline is a form of violence. Instead, Mr. Hoff makes a distinction between CP where the intention is to improve the person and to change behaviour, and violence where the intention is to cause harm to the child. He directs us to empirical evidence, which shows that abuse and mistreatment of children led to worse outcomes.
It is important to note that the criminalizing of judiciously applied corporal punishment to children, such as has occurred in Austria and Sweden, has increased violence and insecurity in schools and society.
For example, in Sweden, where CP was banned in 1979, 6 out of 10 children feel vulnerable at school, and have been victims of youth violence. “Within ten years of the ban, physical abuse had risen to three times the U.S. rate. In the thirty years since the ban, child abuse has increased by over 1400%, even though the Swedish population has only increased by about 11.5%.” Similarly, the World Health Organization found in a 2002 study, that Austria, which criminalized CP in 1977, had the highest bullying rates of all 27 countries examined.
The author notes that large blocks of recorded parental CP data simply do not exist. He provides a long list of claims about physical discipline which are neither supported nor refuted by evidence. For example, the Council of Europe, Canada’s Department of Justice and Public Health Agency of Canada websites all claim that corporal punishment is ineffective. According to the author, however, there is no evidence to support this claim. Further, the Department of Justice “Family Violence Initiative” and Public Health Agency of Canada both exaggerate the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada legal decision on spanking. Mr. Hoff, however, has brought this misinformation to these government departments which have now agreed to correct their websites.
The author does agree, however, with most experts that abusive physical conduct should be criminalized, and refers to the comments made by the Supreme Court in its 2004 ruling on Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which protects parents and educators from criminal charges if physical discipline is used with reasonable force to correct behaviour.
School Corporal Punishment
Meticulous records of corporal punishment meted out in schools exist and they indicate the effectiveness of judiciously supervised CP for various offences. The author does not mean to advocate school corporal punishment, but merely explores the unproven claim by opponents of CP that it is ineffective as a means of discipline in schools.
School records also dispel the notion that school corporal punishment was rampant before it was banned and criminalized. A composite of school records in England between 1940 and 1959 show that there were 15 CP incidents per school per annum. 15% of pupils were exposed, 85% were not, and the average incident per CP’d pupil was 2. Records indicate that time-outs in schools are not new but have been used for over 100 years.
The author further reports on corporal punishment records following 17,840 individuals over 262.2 record years, of 13 different institutions, in four countries – Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia.
This evidence shows that 74.8% of pupils were compliant with school expectations without the need for physical discipline, 22.0% were deterred by CP, with only 3.2% undeterred and re-offending. CP was an incentive to 62.2% from re-offending after the first application. It was effective in keeping 96.8% of pupils compliant by either deterrence-by-expectation, or deterrence-by-experience, up to three times, leaving only 3.2% of students in the undeterred-by-experience group.
Offences for which corporal punishment was used included truancy, stealing, destruction of property, class disruption, sloppiness, rudeness, setting fires, bullying, profanity, obscenity, fighting, cheating, cruelty to animals, gang formation and terrorizing other students.
Today, problematic behaviours in schools have escalated to routine slander of teachers, armed robbery, assault on teachers, alcohol and drugs, extortion, sexual assault, swarming, theft with threat of violence, weapons offences and destruction of property.
The author notes that as CP became less acceptable, it was replaced with expulsion, where the offending student was simply expelled, rather than helped to modify his/her behaviour. Being denied a further chance to obtain an education led to poor outcomes for the student and difficulties for the family. Expulsions, of course, make life easier for administrators and teachers, who rid themselves of the problem which is passed on to other segments of society.
Records show that school CP is extremely effective in deterring certain behaviours, such as cruelty to animals, playing with fire, cheating, damaging property, moral issues (indecency, obscenity, profanity, vulgarity), bullying, lying and harming others. CP is less effective, for minor misbehaviours, which are the most frequent offences. Empirical evidence shows, for example, that CP is exceptionally effective in stopping bullying which, by the way, is not caused by CP according to the evidence.
The author reviewed available school records in Ontario (Toronto, Renfrew, Waterloo and London area school boards) and found that the deterioration of discipline and decline in enrolment in the Toronto boards followed the replacement of CP by suspensions in the 1970’s. He deduces that the massive increases in school suspensions dispels the claim that CP was ineffective. Renfrew, Waterloo and London school boards reinstated school CP.
The author also makes the point that the psychological abuse that may occur as a result of punishments, such as confinement or isolation, is not as obvious or easily prosecutable as physical abuse, but nevertheless can cause serious harm as well.
Judicial Corporal Punishment (JCP)
Judicial punishment refers to CP and incarceration for crimes. The author describes studies on judicial corporal punishment using US Department of Justice statistics on recidivism (repeat offences). The author admits that JCP does not interest our generation and is today unsupportable and unworkable, but points out that statistics show its effectiveness. He does not advocate its return, however, even though empirical evidence shows its effectiveness in changing behaviour was greater than imprisonment.
It is a fact that in Canada, in each decade since the 1950’s, where judicial, school and parental CP have been limited, per capita crime and youth violence rates have risen proportionately.
Conclusion
Author Harold Hoff recommends that all the misinformation on CP be replaced by the facts to disprove the false claims repeatedly being made about CP.
It is fortunate that someone has, at last, made a critical, impartial review of the facts on the issue of corporal punishment. This is important since agitators, who oppose the spanking of children are again raising this issue – arguing on purely emotional grounds, while ignoring the actual facts that are available to them.
Below please refer to his website for more information about the author,
Harold Hoff, Chair / Child Protection Advocate and Researcher
KEEP 43 Committee of Canada
PO Box 65632, Dundas, Ontario, L9H 6Y6
www.keep43.ca
“OPPOSE Harmful Ideologies. PROTECT Children and Family, and KEEP 43”
REALity Volume XXXV Issue No. 1 January 2016