Think of the children

A state legislator in California is currently drafting a bill that, if passed, would prohibit parents from spanking children aged three years and younger. The bill’s sponsor, assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View), would make striking such children a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine of up to $1,000.

So far, polls in California have clearly shown majority opinion against the new bill, with only about a quarter in favor. The question, for many people, isn’t so much whether children three and younger should be spanked or not as it is whether government has the right to enact such a micromanaging law that would be undeniably difficult to enforce.

“Where do you stop?” asked assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine). “At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.”

Except, no. It’s really, really not, Mr. Chuck DeVore. We as a society have many currently existing laws that dictate what children can’t do until certain ages. We set a limit on how old a child can be to ride a bicycle without a helmet, or ride in a car without a car seat, or stay home alone without an adult.

These are issues of child safety, and parents have no say in them. I fail to see how a law regarding physical violence inflicted on a child three years or younger is a larger breach of parents’ rights than the above laws already in place. This is an issue well within government’s realm.

Beyond that, there are no acceptable reasons to hit three-year-old kids in the first place. Child psychologists are divided on whether spanking provides benefits at any age, and the possibilities for harm are just about endless. Spanking, no matter what type of spin gets put on it, is an act of violence. It teaches a child that violence is an appropriate way to deal with a problem, and it opens the door for violent behavior down the road. It can instill fear of a parent in a child, and it can prevent meaningful communication and discussion.

Some might argue that a three-year-old child can’t comprehend more complicated methods of discipline. I don’t know if that’s true. But if it is, I doubt that three-year-old children could comprehend why their parents would be hitting them.

There’s also some just-plain-scary research that has shown links between spanking and impaired sexual growth later in a child’s life. A report from Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education says, “Even without sexual motives on the part of the punisher, spanking can interfere with a child’s normal sexual and psychological development. Because the buttocks are so close to the genitals and so multiply linked to sexual nerve centers, slapping them can trigger powerful and involuntary sensations of sexual pleasure. This can happen even in very young children, and even in spite of great, clearly upsetting pain.”

Even if one were to ignore all of the previously mentioned potential for harm, this is still assuming the spanking is being done calmly and in moderation. It would be wonderful to believe that every parent who spanks their kid does it in the best way possible, but few people are that naive, and the line between an “appropriate” level of spanking and physical abuse can be easily blurred.

Susan Estrich, a law and political science professor at UCLA, commented, “Spanking may not hurt kids, but abuse does, and if we could reduce the latter, is giving up spanking really such a big price to pay?”

Proponents of spanking have claimed it as a more effective method of discipline. James Dobson of Focus On The Family says, “This response does not create aggression in children, it helps them control their impulses and live in harmony with various forms of benevolent authority throughout life.” But why can’t that be done via nonviolent methods? Why spank in the first place when the benefits are hazy, and the costs can be huge? It’s true all the negative aspects are only potential ones, but why not err on the side of caution? Why not use gentler, more communicative methods of discipline? Instead of arbitrary punishment like spanking, why not fit the punishment to the rule broken? Doing all that is hard, but aren’t children worth the effort?

Opponents of the California bill have complained about the difficulty in enforcing an anti-spanking law, and they have a point. Most spanking occurs inside the home, and three-year-old children can’t really report such a thing. Maybe such a law wouldn’t reduce the amount of actual spankings by much. But isn’t putting something on the books at least a start? Isn’t it better than sanctioning the striking of small children?

Seventeen countries already have various anti-spanking laws on the books. Sweden was the first, all the way back in 1979, and Greece just passed one last month. Nowhere in the United States is parental spanking banned, and if the current sentiment in California is any indication, it’s probably going to stay that way. Sally Lieber’s bill will fall by the wayside.

But it’s at least a start.