Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under
any
circumstances, except literal physical self-defense,
should be hit.
Murray A. Straus
Hitting is wrong
. Hitting is a violent
thing to do. Violence is
a thing one person does to make another person hurt.
We want to treat children in ways that do not hurt or harm
them. We can. We want to be kind
and gentle, not harsh.
We want to be tender, merciful
and compassionate. There
is no situation that changes hitting from a wrong thing into a right
thing. There is no excuse that magically makes hurting children kind
or merciful. This is confusing, though, isn't it? A law can
say that it is all right to do a wrong thing to stop a wrong thing.
Hitting, however, is nearly never a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser
of two bad things'. Defense from physical attack, for example, might
be less wrong than the physical attack itself. The law sets a limit,
though, for this rare situation. The law limits a defense to interrupting
or ending the attack upon the physical safety of a person. The laws
that also allow the physical punishment of children do not make it a better
'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. They only
allow it. Hitting children is not tender or compassionate treatment.
Hitting children is not better than treating them in ways that do not hurt.
We will be kinder, gentler and less violent when we all stop hitting children.
We do not say to our children (most of us, anyway), "hitting
is right" or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe
that it is a good thing to hit people. Most of us are not 'in
favor' of hitting children. However, many of us (most of us, actually)
behave as if it is a good thing to do. We are in favor of spanking
and physical punishment. The law attempts to make a physical attack
on a child's body a thing that is all right to do.
The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for
children. How can they tell what it means? Parents are their
example of what is right and good. Parents' behavior is their example
of what love looks and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that
it is all right to hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants
to control others, it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say.
For children whose parents tell them that hitting is wrong, hitting might
also seem to say that it is all right to do something that is wrong.
It certainly does not show or say to the child what behavior is wanted.
There is no obligation or duty to hit children.
No one of us can show that anything bad happens if we do not hit children.
No one can show that children become less well behaved if we do not hit
them. When people think of not hitting children, however, they often
feel afraid and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just
uncomfortable with the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt
what they have not yet experienced? They do not really know
that anything bad will happen. It is enough for them, it seems, that
they believe that something bad will happen. Since people
usually do not really think about many of their beliefs, it is hard to
use reason to help them to be unafraid. But there is no evidence
that a child whose parents model appropriate behavior, clearly and unambiguously
love and nurture that child, diligently encourage and positively reinforce
desired behavior, using reason and persuasion while consistently communicating
and enforcing limits, and demonstrating a rational process for problem
solving, will not "turn out" as well, if not better, than any child held
up as the supposed example of the benefit of spanking her or him.
So we have no duty, contract or promise to hit.
There is no other social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children.
We can count upon our friends and family to say that there
is a need for a 'good spanking'. They will tell us that
spanking people during their childhood is the cure for society's ills.
They carry tradition and myth, as humans always have, but that does not
mean that they know the truth.
Social, legal and moral ties bind us to feed, clothe and
shelter our dependent children. We should teach them to behave well
in public and to contribute according to their capacity. We should
help them to find happiness doing these things. If we do our job
well, they become willing and able to give their best to society.
There is no need to hit children in order to do our social, legal and moral
duty. For example, accepting the responsibilities for a dependent
adult might become our social and moral duty. But, we would have
no legal right to hit that adult in order to do this duty.
Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our
minor children. Yet, there seems to be some mistaken, unfounded
'sense of duty' to do it. I believe that this 'sense' may be the result
of our feeling that other parents in our family or social group know what
we should do. As children, we saw our parents and other adults do
things that we remember as right and good.  Spanking children is
one of those things that we memorized. We copy that behavior with
our own children. We think, therefore, that we are surely being a
good and proper parent. We are following tradition. However,
tradition and morality are separate standards.
Hitting children does not make it easier for us to do
our social, legal or moral duty as parents. Hitting them might seem
to offer us a sort of shortcut. Hitting them may make it easier,
instead, for our children to realize dreadful outcomes; the literal opposites
of our goals. The result of spanking is our children's fear and resentment
of us. Satisfaction with spanking could be related to some other
need, independent of the child.
Murray Straus is author of Beating the Devil
Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families.
He wrote, "The most basic step in eliminating corporal punishment is for
parent educators, psychologists, and pediatricians to make a simple and
unambiguous statement..." That is the statement I have quoted at
the top of this page. I agree with it. I like the statement.
Most people think that it is too strong. Some have felt that the
phrase "except literal physical self-defense" seems to give permission
to spanking parents. Professor Straus also suggests that we say,
without qualification, "A child should never be hit."  I believe
that afterwards, though, one must prepare to respond to the certain question,
"Well, what about the circumstance: self-defense?" But, self-defense
is not at all common among the routine responses to our children's behavior.
Defense of self indeed!
Professor Straus explained to me that he too could recognize
that there is a certain danger in "except for self-defense."
He thought that it was, in part, his training in criminology that led to
his writing it the way he did. He explained that many people misunderstand
the legal concept of self defense and think that retaliation is self defense.
Of course, self defense becomes a legal justification for assault only
if the person is in danger of serious injury or death and cannot
get away. He said, "If a child hits a parent, they can and should
restrain the child if it continues, but they should never hit back."
In his own opinion, the parents should make a big deal out of any instance
of a child hitting. It should be treated as a moral outrage and something
to never be done again. He said, "Hitting back is not self defense."
Legally, an adult who is attacked and hits back may also be guilty of assault.
It concerns me that the quotation risks deafening listeners
so that they hear nothing that follows it. I live and write, and
'mingle' among the people of Arkansas, USA. It is a spank-happy place
where it is "open season" on children--in their homes as well as in their
schools. Our children stand a one-in-seven chance of being hit by
an adult at school, so Arkansas ranks "worst" among the ten worst school-paddling
states.
Still, "never hit" is the phrase to which most of the
provoked readers respond. Realistically, the people I engage all
want to know "What if you're attacked or assaulted by a juvenile
delinquent?" I believe that there has to be an exception. There
almost always is. Perhaps 'except' is permissive.
This exception, of course, is always some extreme, bizarre and unlikely
occurrence. In such a crisis, however, people do what they are going
to do for no certain reason. Anticipation rarely has anything to
do with the outcome. Besides, most parents really are not parenting
armed juveniles. How realistic is it to expect to have to hit your
child to save your life or protect your self from serious physical threat
-- literal physical self-defense?
LITERAL, PHYSICAL, SELF-DEFENSE ... The exception
only barely warrants noting. So, my inconsistency is that I also
agree with the "too soft" critics. I have been around a lot of violence,
threats of serious harm to my family, our property and myself. I
do not hit any children. I worked in child welfare (child protective
services, foster care, adoptions, interstate transfers) in Phoenix.
I worked the pediatric outpatient clinic at the indigent care hospital
in Phoenix and conducted interviews with child abusers (some suicidal and
homicidal). I worked nearly ten years in the pediatric department
and the ER of a large hospital here in Little Rock.
I am not through with living so it would be disingenuous
to make a statement so absolute that I could not realistically expect
to live by it. But I can state, unambiguously, that hitting a child
is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances should be hit.
NeverHitAChild.ORG
Reference: Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal
Punishment in American Families, Lexington Books, 1994, Murray A. Straus
with Denise A. Donnelly, ISBN 0-02-931730-4
A printable
copy of "Never Hit a Child"
see our glossary of terms used
above
read more "NeverHitAChild.ORG"
articles
Please comment, make suggestions, or enquire
at: NeverHitAChild.ORG
Boycott
Internet spam! 
