Corporal punishment: reasonable chastisement no longer acceptable

Government should move to amend law

Spare the rod and spoil the child is a centuries-old injunction that encouraged too many parents to make liberal use of corporal punishment in disciplining their children. Physical force was regarded as an effective and legitimate means of imposing discipline, and indeed building character. Far too often parental will was enforced by violent means. Pain was inflicted on, and fear instilled in, tender young minds and bodies. And the physical and psychological effects could, in some cases, prove damaging and traumatic.

In 1982 corporal punishment was outlawed in primary schools. Today discipline there is maintained by using rewards and non-violent punishments. Some 15 years ago, legislation allowing parents to use force against their children was repealed but a common law defence of reasonable chastisement was retained. A committee of the Council of Europe has decided this provision violates the European Social Charter, as children have a right to be protected against violence. Ireland is a signatory to the charter, and the Government must now explain how it proposes to bring domestic law into conformity with the charter.

Reasonable chastisement – smacking children – while less and less socially acceptable, remains a relatively common practice. A national survey of three-year-olds revealed that almost half of their primary caregivers did, on occasion, smack those in their charge. Public opinion too remains divided on the issue; just 42 per cent of respondents in a Government-commissioned survey favoured an outright ban on smacking. Outside Ireland, however, support for outlawing violence against children has continued to grow: in Europe 22 countries have made physical punishment of children illegal. Ireland has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which outlaws violence against children, but the failure to prohibit corporal punishment within the family has drawn adverse comment from that body. The Government now has two reasons to change the law. For those – and other more compelling reasons – it should not delay.