Corporal punishment: Why the intentional use of violence against children is still acceptable

Abstract

In Australia assaulting another person is a criminal offence. It occurs when one person strikes another person, applying force of any kind either directly or indirectly, without the person's consent. There is an exception. Children are specifically denied legal protection from intentional assaults when it is rebranded as corporal punishment. Successive governments have failed to act to provide children with the same protection from assault as adults despite repeated calls by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment in all settings, and the robust body of evidence of the substantial harm it causes (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). This glaring inconsistency in the law, should cause us to question how far we have evolved in our attitudes and treatment of children. In particular just how deeply ingrained are attitudes and prejudices about children that rationalise or justify acts and omissions that harm them, and fail to protect their rights (Childism: Confronting Prejudice Against Children, Yale University Press, 2013). This paper will examine past and contemporary attitudes to children and the narrative that helps explains why policy makers and the community tolerate the use of physical force against children, and why a new narrative is needed.