Ever since Diana Baumrind of the University of California wrote her article in 1966, there came an understanding that there are actually three models of parental control. The permissive parent behaves in a nonpunitive, affirmative, and acceptant manner, and tend to consult the child about policy decisions and the family rules. The authoritarian parent, on the other hand, is more attempting in shaping, controlling, and evaluating the behaviour or attitude of the child consistent with a set of standards or conduct. Lastly, the authoritative parent tend to direct the child in a rational, issue-oriented manner by encouraging verbal give and take, and sharing the reasoning behind the policies. Parents have the authority to guide and direct their children towards a behaviour alternative that they wish their children to acquire. However, many abuse their authority by valuing obedience as a virtue while favoring “punitive, forceful measures to curb self-will at points where the child’s actions or beliefs conflict with what she thinks is right conduct” (Baumrind, 1966, p.890). At these times, the child becomes subjective to corporal punishment, which may lead to maltreatment.
Corporal Punishment in Child Rearing
The use of corporal punishment by an authoritarian parent remains one of the oldest customs of traditional childrearing in Europe and America. Corporal punishment has persisted over the centuries, and by now as much as 50 percent of parents of toddlers, and 65 percent of parents of preschools in the United States use corporal punishment to their children (Gershoff, 2010, p.31). By the time these children reach middle and high school, about 85 percent of the totality have experienced being physically punished by their parents (Gershoff, 2010, p.31). These high prevalence rates are ironically in contrast with the discovery that “the risks for substantial harm from corporal punishment outweigh any benefit of immediate child compliance” (Gershoff, 2010, p.32). One of the reasons is because of the effect of the long history, in a way that it has become a part of the tradition of the societies, as punishment was deemed acceptable for many ages, particularly corporal punishment to children.
Parents have different goals for deciding on applying corporal punishment in the rearing of their children. Most often, they use corporal punishment to correct their child’s misbehaviour or misconduct. It is their wish to put an immediate stop to their child’s unacceptable behaviour, or to get the child to comply with the wishes of the parent. Other parents use it also to get the attention of the child, or insist to the child that they are the one in authority. Parents also have long-term goals in using corporal punishment in rearing their children, as they would want to reduce the likelihood that their child will repeat the undesirable behaviour. Instead, they want them to behave in a more socially acceptable manner, so children will know how to conduct themselves in the long run. For this, parents use corporal punishment whenever they see their child playing with matches, or hurting another child, or violating social norms like stealing money from another person. Through corporal punishment, they are able to increase the child’s long-term compliance to socially acceptable behavior, while at the same time decrease their aggressive, antisocial behaviour.
The Effects of Physical Punishment
There has been numerous research findings that insist how physical punishment can lead to ineffective results. A research team from Children’s Issues Centre made a study on the issuing of guidance and discipline to children. According to Anne Smith (2006, p.114), the use of physical punishment in rearing children can be ineffective and can even be harmful, either in connection to their cognitive and mental health, or social and moral health. To prove this, Smith (2006, p.115) implied that there is a very large difference between discipline and physical punishment. Smith (2006) defined corporal/physical punishment as “the use of force to cause pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control” (p.115). Discipline, however, is defined as “the guidance of children’s moral, emotional and physical development, enabling children to take responsibility for themselves when they are older” (Smith, 2006, p.115). This is very different from corporal punishment, as it only involves teaching the child about the boundaries of morality and what is deemed acceptable. Yet, in corporal punishment, there is tendency for an abuse from the authoritarian parent, who may use severe punishment in directing the child, which leads to negative consequences.
Severe corporal punishment may lead to long-term effects on the side of the child. It may lead to aggression and antisocial behavior towards their peers, siblings, and other adults. If a child experiences physical punishment often, it may legitimise violence and affect interpersonal relationships, as they tend to internalise the social relations that they experience (Vygotsky, 1978). As an effect, what the parent would want to prevent in the child is more over being strengthened ironically. In Bandura’s (1969) social learning theory, it suggests that physical punishment only enables the child to learn aggressive behaviour via modelling. With this, parents who inflict pain to their children are more likely to encourage their children to inflict pain to others, which only strengthens what is being hindered. Cognitively, failure to explain and reason out to the child will lead to the latter having poorer cognition as well.
When Punishment Becomes Maltreatment
There are times when corporal punishment becomes a way for maltreatment. In 2012, there was an article in the newspaper that told of a mother and stepfather who made their boy live in squalid room as punishment for his bad behaviour. The 11-year-old boy was made to live in a coal bunker for one whole year, wherein he used a potty and there was no heating, and from which he slept on a dirty mattress using a sleeping bag for a blanket (The Guardian, 2012). He was locked up every night and on until the morning, in a room with concrete walls and floor and not one window, only because he raided the family’s refrigerator. As seen in this case, it seemed that there were problems in the attachment between the parent and the child, which made the former induce severe punishment to the child. These attachment problems usually take place whenever there are problems on the parent providing sufficient security to the child, such that they would live freely without abuse or neglect.
According to Crittenden and Ainsworth (1989), “Individuals in maltreating families will be expected to form anxious attachments with family members” (p.446). This means that children who are maltreated by parents are more likely to form anxious attachments, which then leads to “distorted internal representational models of the self and others” (Crittenden and Ainsworth, 1989, p.446). With this, the child is more likely to form anxious relationship with the parent, especially those who are between 1 and 4 years of age (Crittenden and Ainsworth, 1989, p.447). These children are more likely to inherit the anxious/avoidant pattern in relation to their parents, and are more likely to develop child anxiety, usually as an effect of maternal insensitivity. As stated, “There is substantial evidence that abusing mothers are more harsh, interfering, controlling, and negative when interacting with their children” (Crittenden and Ainsworth, 1989, p.447). There is the suggestion that maltreating parents do not bond properly to their children. A parent who does not nurture the child fails to form a bond, and will more likely maltreat the child in the future.
Government Policies on Corporal Punishment
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
There are government policies in the UK that is focused on protecting the rights of children against abusive parents and those who maltreat their children by applying severe corporal punishment. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was set under the goal of giving more power to local authorities, in order to implement rules that would reduce public disorder and crime around the communities. This act includes parenting orders, in addition to antisocial behaviour orders, sex offender orders, and racially aggravated offenders. Meanwhile, it abolishes the presumption that children who are below 10 years of age are incapable of committing a criminal offence, as based on the anti-social behaviour orders (Durham, 2015). However, restrictions may be applied when orders interfere with the parent’s or the child’s religion, or when the times interfere with their work or education.
Doli Incapax Ruling
Another government policy that is connected to corporal punishment is the doli incapax ruling, which came after the 1997 government election in England (Wishart, 2013, p.50). It was implemented for the purpose of organising better parenting within communities through anti-social behaviour by proposing a no more excuses mentality. In this law, Jack Straw insists that youngsters who are aged 10-13 years old are incapable of doing evil “unless the prosecution can prove the reverse” (Wishart, 2013, p.50). As Jack Straw pronounced, this makes it difficult for the court to convict such young offenders. Thus, the doli incapax goes for the abolition of The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contrary to Section 34: “the rebuttable presumption of criminal law that a child aged 10 or over is incapable of committing an offence is hereby abolished” (Wishart, 2013, p.51). In the doli incapax, it is stated that criminal responsibility should start at the age of 10 contrary to Section 16 of The Children and Young Persons Act of 1969 (Wishart, 2013, p.51). With this, any child under the age of 10, who is convicted of a crime should be deemed to have legal immunity from the rigours of the criminal justice system, as these children are still incapable of committing evil.
The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
Another government policy is The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that puts a new shift to crime and community safety through increased transparency and the increase of professional discretion. This policy contains two new measures that gives victims greater amount of discretion: first is Community Trigger that gives victims the capacity to demand action; and second is the Community Remedy that gives privilege to victims in terms of out-of-court punishment given to offenders (Home Office, 2014, p.2). These can be made useful at times when a victim of an antisocial behaviour crime is given right to request a review of the case, which would gather the agencies together in a joined-up, problem-solving approach, in order to find a solution for the given case. It is also useful to victims, as they would have the privilege to have a say on how the perpetrators would have to be punished in accordance to the given case. This goes for better transparency, as victims are allowed to take part in the issuing of punishment, as they are legally allowed to participate in the sanctioning of law and order within the community by giving them voice to the matter.
Policies and the Strain Theory
The strain theory argues that “delinquency results when individuals are unable to achieve their goals through legitimate channels” (Agnew, 1985, p.151). Individuals, especially children, may suppose that the illegitimate channels are the only way for them to achieve their goals, which blocks the goal-seeking behaviour. They may become frustrated and thus, turn to crime and delinquency, especially when their environments are aversive or painful, and there is nothing legal that they can do to escape from them. One of the critiques, however, insists the theory of Merton that children are unable to achieve their goals in a legal manner, which leads to delinquent behaviour while searching for ways to achieve their goal (Agnew, 1985, p.152). Still, Cohen and Cloward added that goal-blockage will not lead to delinquency unless the child is able to form his/her subcultures (Agnew, 1985, p.152). However, studies prove that “delinquency is highest when both aspirations and expectations are low, and delinquency is lowest when both aspirations and expectations are high” (Agnew, 1985, p.152). This leads to the conclusion that high aspirations and expectations would lead to strong commitment to the conventional order. More so, adolescents tend to be reward-seeking and punishment-escaping, and that they are usually put in aversive situations, such as when they are unable to meet their goals and motives. With these findings, the government created policies that would give voice to children and adolescents, and protect their rights by instigating transparency and better-parenting environment in the UK.
Children as Outsiders
Deviance has always been a subject in the course of scientific study. A deviant is said to have low aspirations and expectations, as compared to other members of the group, which leads them to commit delinquency or crime within the community. There is the premise that the deviants—those who are outsiders of the group—usually break the rules of the group, mainly because there is the common-sense assumption that he/she should break the rule. Yet, in the common sense it is the society that creates deviance, since it is the group who create the rules “whose infraction constitutes deviance” (Becker, 1963, p.6). In other words, it is the group that labels these perpetrators as outsiders of the group, in accordance to the rules that they, the group, had created. For this, it can be deemed acceptable that the person who committed a deviant act did not break a rule, since the process of labeling what is deviant may not be infallible. The act may appear to be deviant when applied according to the rules of the group that labeled what is deemed to be a deviant act. The perpetrators, therefore, become the outsiders of the group, and there has to be some policies that should also protect their rights of perpetrators committing delinquency against what is deemed acceptable.
Is There an Alternative Method to Punishment?
In view of the statement of Becker (1963, p.1) at children are adolescent perpetrators are being viewed as the outsiders of the group or community, there has to be an alternative to punishment that would give voice to perpetrators as part of the group or community. Criminal law should be reconstructed according to the restorative utilitarianism perspective that would prevent harm on all members of the community, including the adolescent perpetrators. Under the retributive theory, a person should not be justly punished unless he/she is morally responsible. However, it would not be morally just to punish the young children, as they are still mentally fragile and may not possess a sound, competent mind. Punishment should be executed only if they deserve to be and should thus, be responsible.
Reference List:
Agnew, R., 1985. A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces 64(1), pp.151-167.
Bandura, A., 1969. Principles of behaviour modification. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Baumrind, D., 1966. Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), pp.887-907.
Becker, H., 1963. The outsiders. The outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. London: Free Press. pp.1-18.
Crittenden, P.M. and Ainsworth, M. Child maltreatment and attachment theory. In: D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson, eds., 1989. Child maltreatment: theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ch.14.
Durham, J., 2015. Your rights under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Problem Neighbours, [online] Available at: <http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/rights-under-crime-and-disorder-act.html>.
Gershoff, E.T., 2010. More harm than good: A summary of scientific research on the intended and unintended effects of corporal punishment on children. Law and Contemporary Problems 73(31), pp.31-56.
Home Office, 2014. Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: reform of anti-social behaviour powers. [pdf] UK: The Government of England. Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/352562/ASB_Guidance_v8_July2014_final__2_.pdf> [Accessed 10 March 2016].
Smith, A,, 2006. The state of research on the effects of physical punishment. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 27(1), pp.114-127.
The Guardian, 2012. Parents face jail sentence for forcing 11-year-old son to live in coal bunker. The Guardian, [online] Available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/21/parents-face-jail-child-cruelty>.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wishart, H., 2013. Was the abolition of the doctrine of doli incapax necessary? UK Law Student Review 1(2), pp.50-63.
