Spare the rod and save the child essay

English Research/Argument Essay

Works Cited

Becker, Jo. “Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms.” Social Research, vol. 85, no. 1, Spring 2018, pp. 255–271.

EBSCOhost, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=129524375&site=ehost-live.

Corporal Punishment: Legal Reform as a Route to Changing Norms

the term “harmful traditional practices” typically brings to mind child marriage, female genital mutilation/cutting, and so-called “honor killings,”

but rarely corporal punishment. Yet corporal punishment is arguably the most pervasive harmful traditional practice children experience

today. In nearly every part of the world, parents use physical punishment to “discipline” their children. Such corporal punishment typically

takes the form of hitting a child with a bare hand or an object such as a stick or paddle. A 2014 survey found that four of every five children

between the ages of two and 14—an estimated 1 billion globally—experience physical punishment in their home on a regular basis ([ 32] ,

96).

The practice of corporal punishment is rooted in both cultural norms and religious belief. Parents often believe that corporal punishment will

teach children good behavior. They hit their children because it is socially accepted and because they themselves often were hit growing up.

Some religious teachings appear to justify the practice.[ 1] The adage “spare the rod, spoil the child,” rooted in the Old Testament Book of

Proverbs, suggests not only that corporal punishment of children is permitted, but also that it is expected of good parents. Influenced by

javascript:openWideTip('http://support.ebsco.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=MLA');
http://dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=129524375&site=ehost-live
5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail… 2/12

English common law, during the twentieth century, more than 70 countries enshrined the rights of parents to “reasonable chastisement” in

their legal codes ([ 16] ). [End Page 255]

Social norm theory suggests that ending harmful practices depends on changing collective beliefs about the acceptability and efficacy of the

practice, and that legal reform is of limited utility, or even counterproductive ([ 26] ). Experience around female genital mutilation/cutting

(FGM/C), for example, has found that extended local dialogue about community values can lead to voluntary abandonment of FGM/C ([ 14] ).

Legal reform as a strategy to end FGM/C has generally been ineffective or simply driven the practice underground. As long as FGM/C

remains the norm for most families, individual parents will continue to have their daughters cut, perceiving the social inclusion that FGM/C

offers to outweigh the risks of potential prosecution. Some scholars find that only when attitude change is already underway is legal reform

effective in reinforcing new norms ([ 29] ).

In contrast to the experience of challenging other harmful traditional practices, this paper argues that legal reform, when accompanied by

public education, can be an effective strategy to end the corporal punishment of children. Evidence from multiple countries has found that

when corporal punishment is prohibited by law, changes in attitudes and practices follow. Nearly all the countries that have prohibited

corporal punishment have done so ahead of public opinion ([ 20] , 12). Yet change in practice and attitudes following legal reform can be both

swift and dramatic.

THE HARMS OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Recent research finds that the effects of corporal punishment on children are overwhelmingly negative. Studies have found that children who

experience corporal punishment are more aggressive towards others, and more likely to resort to violence to respond to conflict ([ 2] ). They

are more likely to engage in delinquent or antisocial behavior, including bullying, lying, cheating, truancy, and criminal activity. A German

study of more than 45,000 ninth graders, for example, found that children who were subjected to severe corporal punishment were five times

more likely to become [End Page 256] violent offenders ([ 28] , 97). Corporal punishment may damage children’s mental health, leading to

greater anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and hopelessness. It is also linked to lower IQ scores and poor school performance ([ 13] ). The

damage extends well into adulthood: adults who experienced corporal punishment as children are more likely to engage in aggression and

criminal behavior, as well as domestic violence towards an intimate partner or child, and experience higher rates of depression, alcoholism,

and suicidal tendencies ([ 1] ).

A meta-analysis of more than 250 published studies examining corporal punishment and its impacts found that not a single one

demonstrated any benefits to the practice ([ 19] ). Contrary to popular belief, corporal punishment is not effective as a disciplinary measure.

One US study, for example, found that when children between the ages of two and five were spanked by their mothers, 73 percent of the

children repeated the same behavior for which they had been hit within the next 10 minutes ([ 23] ). Corporal punishment also damages

parent-child relationships; children report that after being physically punished, they feel hurt, angry, and frightened of their parents ([ 9] ).

When parents physically punish their children, they are often angry, making it easy for the level of punishment to escalate beyond what was

intended and cause serious injury, or at times even death. Shaking babies or toddlers, for example, can lead to permanent brain injuries. In

5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail… 3/12

the United States alone, over 700 children die each year due to physical abuse by parents ([ 33] ).

THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERATIVE

Regardless of the scientific evidence of harm, corporal punishment violates the human rights of children. Children, like adults, have a right to

respect for their dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law. Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

obligates governments to take all appropriate measures “to [End Page 257] protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence,

injury or abuse … while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of that child.” The Committee on the

Rights of the Child, which monitors compliance with the Convention, has stated that this obligation “does not leave room for any level of

legalized violence against children. Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of violence and States

must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to eliminate them” ([ 8] ).

The rationale for legal reform to end corporal punishment of children is based on several key arguments. One is that children are entitled to

equal protection under the law, including in the home. If hitting an adult is considered assault, hitting a child should not be legally permissible

either. A second is that as long as corporal punishment is legal, parents and other caregivers are more likely to believe it is acceptable to hit

children in their care. A third argument is that legal prohibition of corporal punishment—particularly when accompanied by public education—

will motivate parents to look into alternative forms of discipline and encourage governments to provide appropriate resources and education.

By early 2018, 53 countries had legally prohibited all corporal punishment of children, including in the home, and 56 more had stated a

commitment to full prohibition ([ 15] ). Countries enacting bans included most European and Latin American countries, and a handful of

others in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. No states in the United States ban corporal punishment in the home. Studies comparing attitudes

and practice related to corporal punishment before and after legal prohibition, however, are primarily limited to Europe and New Zealand. The

following case studies explore experiences in several countries.

Sweden

In 1979, Sweden became the first country in the world to explicitly prohibit by law all forms of corporal punishment of children, including [End

Page 258] in the home. When its parliament began to debate prohibition, they called it a “signal law,” i.e., a law that signaled an approach

primarily for public education. Its intent was not to prosecute and imprison parents, except in the most extreme cases. After the law’s

adoption, the Ministry of Justice ran a large-scale public education campaign. Brochures entitled “Can You Bring Up Children Successfully

without Smacking and Spanking?” were distributed to all households with children, information on the issue was printed on milk cartons, and

children’s and antenatal clinics provided support and information to parents. Within just a couple of years, over 90 percent of Swedish

families were aware of the law ([ 17] ).

Several studies have found significant changes over time in attitudes towards corporal punishment among Swedes. In 1965, for example, 53

percent of parents indicated support for corporal punishment, but in 1999, only 10 percent did so ([ 25] ). A 2014 study on changes in

parenting practices in Sweden used over 53 years of data to compare three cohorts—1958, 1981, and 2011—of young to middle-aged adults

5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail… 4/12

and their self-reported experiences of being slapped during childhood. The study found almost no differences between the 1958 and 1981

cohorts, but a significant drop between 1981 and 2011. Twenty percent of the 1958 cohort and 18 percent of the 1981 cohort said they were

often slapped by their parents, but only 2 percent of the 2011 cohort said they were frequently slapped. The study concluded that over the 53

years, the likelihood of participants being slapped decreased by 93 percent, with almost the entire decline—92 percent—occurring from 1981

(two years after the change in the law) to 2011 ([ 30] ).

New Zealand

New Zealand prohibited corporal punishment of children in 2007, after nearly two years of fierce and acrimonious public debate. Previously, a

law known as Section 59[ 2] explicitly permitted New Zealand parents to physically punish their children. In the 1980s, targeted lobbying led

to a prohibition on corporal punishment in childcare centers, [End Page 259] institutions, and schools, but there was little interest in banning it

in the home.

In 1989, New Zealand appointed its first commissioner for children, who began to advocate actively for repeal of Section 59 and a full

prohibition on all corporal punishment of children. In 1997, the Committee on the Rights of the Child conducted its first review of New

Zealand’s compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and recommended that New Zealand review its law and prohibit all

corporal punishment of children ([ 6] ).

In response to the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s initial recommendations, New Zealand’s cabinet instructed government officials to

report on how other countries approached the issue of corporal punishment. The Ministry of Justice conducted research on public opinions

regarding the law, and found that a strong majority —80 percent—of parents believed that it was acceptable to smack a child, though only 9

percent believed that it was an “effective” strategy in guiding a child towards better behavior. The Ministry said publicly that it supported

alternative forms of discipline, but that the government had no plans to repeal Section 59 ([ 36] , 172).

In late 2003, the Committee on the Rights of the Child concluded its second review of New Zealand, criticizing its failure to repeal Section 59

and again recommending that the country prohibit corporal punishment of children ([ 7] ). The same month, UNICEF published a report that

placed New Zealand third among the world’s richest countries in its rate of child deaths from maltreatment. The report found that children in

New Zealand were six times more likely to die from physical abuse as in the other countries surveyed ([ 31] ).

After a member of Parliament introduced a bill to repeal Section 59, the issue became the focus of public debate. Groups opposing the repeal

of Section 59 bought full-page ads in newspapers and launched a petition campaign that garnered over 200,000 signatures. Their opposition

to the bill focused on three arguments: that physical punishment was a necessary and positive aspect of parental discipline, that the

proposed law unnecessarily intruded into family life, [End Page 260] and that the repeal of Section 59 would result in criminal prosecution of

parents for even minor cases of physical punishment ([ 35] ).

5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail… 5/12

A small core of advocates for the prohibition of corporal punishment secured support from 140 organizations for abolition. They provided

politicians in Wellington with briefing sheets and other arguments in support of repeal, and ensured a significant presence in the gallery every

time Parliament debated the bill. The campaign developed media kits addressing myths and misunderstandings around the proposed law,

produced media releases, and presented spokes-people, including religious leaders, supporting prohibition to newspapers, radio, and

television ([ 34] ).

Save the Children New Zealand commissioned research on children’s experiences of corporal punishment, finding that 40 percent of five- to

seven-year-olds reported being smacked or hit around the face or head, and 25 percent had been hit with objects including belts, canes,

tennis rackets, and spatulas ([ 9] , 44). The study also found that many children believed that their parents beat them not to provide guidance,

but out of anger.

Intense opposition to repeal of Section 59 continued up until Parliament’s final vote in May 2007. Opponents of the “Anti-Smacking Law”

organized rallies around the country, coordinated an extensive lobbying campaign, and brought international experts to New Zealand to

advocate in favor of physical punishment. The day Parliament voted to repeal Section 59, over a thousand protesters gathered in front of the

parliament building, waving banners and chanting slogans opposing the proposed law ([ 34] ).

After the law changed, however, so did public attitudes. Public opinion surveys over three decades found that in 1981, 89 percent of the

public approved of physical punishment of children. By 2008, a year following legal reform, approval had dropped to 58 percent, and after just

five more years, to 40 percent. Analysis of the data found that the steepest declines occurred during the 1990s after physical punishment was

banned in schools, and then following the 2007 ban on corporal punishment in the home ([ 11] ). [End Page 261]

Germany

Germany prohibited all corporal punishment of children in 2000, accompanied by a 15-month awareness-raising campaign called “More

Respect for Children.” The campaign included billboards, lectures and seminars that were covered by the media, and events including

theater and street parties, emphasizing children’s right to a nonviolent upbringing ([ 17] , 6).

A longitudinal study found that in 1996, 83 percent of German parents believed that a “mild slap on the face” was acceptable, but by 2008,

only 25 percent of parents thought so ([ 5] ). Self-reports of children themselves may be more significant. In 1992, 30 percent of young people

over the age of 11 reported that they had been “thrashed,” while only 3 percent of young people reported the same in 2002 ([ 12] ).

In 1992, a representative survey of thousands of Germans between ages 16 and 40 found that 26 percent reported that they had not been

physically punished in childhood. In 2011, a similar survey found that the percentage had doubled to 52 percent. Among the youngest cohort,

the percentage was even higher: 63 percent of 16- to 20-year-olds reported that they had never been physically punished ([ 28] , 97).

COMPARATIVE RESEARCH

5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail… 6/12

Two multicountry studies have looked at attitudes and practices in countries that have banned corporal punishment of children compared to

those that have not. A 1999 study of 14 European Union countries, surveying over 10,000 adults in over 200 cities, found that people in

countries that have banned corporal punishment of children were less likely to find corporal punishment acceptable than people in countries

where it was still legal ([ 21] ). Another study conducted in 2007 interviewed 5,000 parents in five European countries: Sweden, Austria, and

Germany, which had prohibited corporal punishment; and Spain and France, which had not. It found that parents were significantly less likely

to report using [End Page 262] corporal punishment and less likely to find it acceptable in countries that had banned corporal punishment,

compared to parents living in countries where it was still legal. For example, over half the French and Spanish parents reported spanking

their children, while only 17 percent of those in Austria and Germany, and only 4 percent of Swedes, did so. The study concluded that “there

can no longer be any doubt about the violence-reducing effect of a ban on childrearing violence” ([ 5] , 20).

PUBLIC EDUCATION VS LEGAL REFORM

Governments seeking to end corporal punishment of children have several possible avenues. They can rely primarily on public education,

raising awareness among parents about nonviolent parenting options and the harms of corporal punishment. They can rely on legal reform,

banning corporal punishment, including in the home. Or they can combine the two, prohibiting corporal punishment by law while also

conducting public awareness campaigns.

There is little research that compares the outcomes of relying solely on public education to the outcomes of legal reform without public

education. What research exists suggests that combining the two creates the greatest changes in both attitudes and practice. A 2002 study

of 10 countries that had prohibited corporal punishment concluded:

Unless public education is underpinned by legal reform it can only ever be partially convincing, and limited in its success. A retained defence

of “reasonable chastisement” serves to undermine professional arguments in favour of “positive parenting” methods, and allows those wholly

or partly committed to physical punishment a powerful reason not to adopt less harmful child-rearing practices. Conversely, to introduce legal

reform in the absence of sustained programmes of public education and family support for those in need of greater help would be

unacceptable. Removing a parental right “enjoyed” for [End Page 263] centuries without helping parents to find effective and reliable

alternatives helps neither parents nor their children; the evidence shows that attitudes and practices have shifted most in countries which

have invested in sustained public education, such as Sweden.

([ 4] , 67)

ACCELERATING LEGAL REFORM

In 2001, when the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment was launched, only 11 countries had legally prohibited all corporal

punishment of children.[ 3] Since then, the Global Initiative has used a range of strategies to accelerate prohibition of corporal punishment,

working with national campaigns on legislative reform, and systematically using the United Nations treaty bodies and Universal Periodic

Review (UPR) of UN member countries to promote legal reform. In the 16 years following the Global Initiative’s founding, the number of

states prohibiting all corporal punishment of children more than quadrupled, from 11 to 53 ([ 15] ).

5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail… 7/12

As the basis for its advocacy, the Global Initiative tracked the status of national legislation and court cases regarding corporal punishment in

every country worldwide. This mapping examined all relevant national legislation, including the settings where corporal punishment might be

already illegal and what further changes were necessary to achieve a comprehensive ban. It also tracked relevant court decisions,

recommendations from relevant UN bodies, any commitments that countries had made to ban corporal punishment, and new laws under

consideration that could be used to prohibit the practice ([ 27] ).

The Global Initiative used this information to systematically brief UN treaty bodies, beginning with the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

The Global Initiative submitted information for every country coming for review before the Committee, and by 2015, had submitted 258

briefings ([ 3] , 21). Based on the Global Initiative’s information, the Committee made recommendations to 188 states urging the complete

prohibition of corporal punishment of [End Page 264] children. In over a hundred of these cases, the Committee made the recommendation

more than once, as states came under subsequent reviews. Every few years, representatives of the Global Initiative met with the full

committee, in order to update it regarding progress towards global prohibition, and to highlight key issues ([ 27] ).

Encouraged by the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s willingness to take up the issue, the Global Initiative widened its focus and began

making regular submissions to committees monitoring compliance with other human rights treaties, which also began recommending that

states prohibit all corporal punishment of children.[ 4] In the case of the Committee against Torture, recommendations to prohibit corporal

punishment increased six-fold after the Global Initiative started submitting its briefings ([ 3] , 54).

In 2008, the UN Human Rights Council initiated the process of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), under which members assess the

human rights record of every UN member state every four years. Beginning with the first UPR session, the Global Initiative began submitting

briefings on every state. During the first cycle (2008–2011), the Global Initiative submitted briefings on 175 states; in 96 cases, other states

made recommendations on corporal punishment to the country under review ([ 18] ).

The UPR requires states under review to respond to the recommendations they have received by indicating whether they accept the

recommendation, reject it, or take note of it. Between 2008 and 2015, 129 states received at least one recommendation regarding corporal

punishment. By 2015, 19 of these had banned all corporal punishment of children, and an additional 38 had publicly committed to legal

reform ([ 3] , 33). An independent assessment of the Global Initiative concluded in 2015 that the strategy of utilizing treaty bodies and the

UPR had been particularly influential, and found a clear correlation between the interventions of the Global Initiative in these venues and the

countries that have prohibited corporal punishment ([ 3] , 38). [End Page 265]

The Global Initiative has actively monitored new opportunities for legal reform, supported national organizations in their advocacy, and

commented on bills and draft laws in dozens of countries. In collaboration with Save the Children Sweden, the Global Initiative conducted law

reform workshops in several regions, and published a series of briefing papers on how to campaign for changes in law. It also worked with

religious leaders to address faith-based opposition to abolition, by highlighting universal religious values of compassion, justice, equality, and

nonviolence ([ 10] ).

5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail… 8/12

CONCLUSION

Legal reform to prohibit corporal punishment can accelerate changes in both attitudes and practice on the issue, even in countries where

large majorities support corporal punishment. Individual country studies have found that public acceptance of corporal punishment drops—

sometimes dramatically—after legal reform prohibiting the practice. Comparative studies have also found that parents are significantly less

likely to report using corporal punishment and less likely to find it acceptable in countries that have banned corporal punishment, compared to

parents living in countries where it was still legal. Change is most pronounced in countries that accompany legal prohibition with public

education campaigns.

Could the same result be achieved solely with public education? Little research is available, though the EU comparative study found drops in

levels of acceptance of corporal punishment in all countries that had banned the practice, regardless of how much they invested in public

education campaigns. Another question is whether attitudes towards corporal punishment change over time—even without legal action—as

people become more aware of violence against children. The United States, where all states allow corporal punishment in the home, offers

an interesting case. Public support for corporal punishment has remained consistently high in the United States, despite active media

coverage of violence against children. In a 1995 survey, 87 percent of US adults said it was “sometimes appropriate” for parents [End Page

266] to spank their children. In 2013, nearly 20 years later, the percentage who gave that response had only dropped a few points, to 81

percent ([ 22] ).

One limitation of many surveys on corporal punishment is that they ask parents to self-report on their attitudes and whether or not they

physically punish their children. In countries that have prohibited the practice, individuals may underreport their use of corporal punishment or

misrepresent their attitudes, aware that the practice is now illegal. Self-reporting by children on their actual treatment is likely a better

measure. Such studies are fewer in number, but also show that the practice of corporal punishment declines when it is prohibited by law.

Corporal punishment violates the rights of children, has long-lasting negative impacts on children’s health and well-being, and creates

significant socioeconomic costs. Although the practice is deeply ingrained in many cultures, the available research shows that legal reform—

particularly when coupled with public education—can contribute to rapid and lasting change in both attitudes and practices.

The findings on legal reform and corporal punishment may have useful implications for changing other social norms. Factors to be

considered include the perceived benefits to individuals and families who continue a practice, perceived costs of abandoning the practice,

and the degree to which the existing legal regime may send a signal that the practice is acceptable and not to be questioned. An interesting

parallel, for example, may be child labor. Although poverty is the main driver for families who send their children into the workforce, the

International Labor Organization has identified legal prohibition as a key factor in a significant reduction of global child labor rates. Since

2000, the number of children engaged in child labor has dropped by more than one-third, from 245 million to 152 million ([ 24] ). In the United

States, for example, child labor persists primarily in just one sector—agriculture—where an exemption in labor law allows children to work

legally at much younger ages than in other sectors. Wages for adult farmworkers in the United States are [End Page 267] very low, creating

undeniable pressure for children to work to help support the family. However, families may also calculate that since child labor in agriculture

is legal, it is also acceptable. Changes in the law could persuade families to pursue other alternatives.

5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail… 9/12

NOTES

1 E.g., “He that spareth his rod hateth his son; But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24); “Do not withhold discipline

from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die,” (Proverbs 23:13); “A rod and a reprimand impart wisdom, but a child left

undisciplined disgraces its mother” (Proverbs 29:15).

2 New Zealand’s 1961 Crimes Act, section 59: “(1) Every parent of a child... is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if

the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.”

3 Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Israel, and Germany.

4 These treaty bodies included the Human Rights Committee; the Committee against Torture; the Committee on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights; the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against

Women.

REFERENCES

Afifi, Tracy O, Natalie P. Mota, Patricia Dasiewicz, Harriet L. MacMillan, and Jitender Sareen. 2012. “Physical Punishment and Mental

Disorders: Results from a Nationally Representative US Sample.” Pediatrics, 130 (2): 184–92.Google Scholar

Ani, C. C. and S. Grantham-McGregor. 1998. “Family and Personal Characteristics of Aggressive Nigerian Boys: Differences from and

Similarities with Western Findings.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 23(5): 311–17.Google Scholar

Bower, Carol. 2015. Evaluation of the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. London: Global Initiative. [End Page 268]

Google Scholar

Boyson, Rowan. 2002. Equal Protection for Children: An Overview of the Experience of Countries that Accord Children Full Protection from

Physical Punishment. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.Google Scholar

5 Bussman, K. D. 2009. The Effect of Banning Corporal Punishment in Europe: A Five-Nation Comparison, Halle-Wittenberg: Martin-Luther-

Universitat.Google Scholar

6 Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). 1997. Concluding Observations: New Zealand. CRC/C/15/Add.71.

7 ———. 2003. Concluding Observations: New Zealand. CRC/C/15/Add.216.

8 ———. 2007. General Comment No. 8 (2006), The Right of the Child to Protection from Corporal Punishment and Other Cruel and

Degrading Treatment. CRC/C/GC/8.

5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdeta… 10/12

9 Dobbs, T. 2005. Insights: Children and Young People Speak Out about Family Discipline. Wellington: Save the Children New

Zealand.Google Scholar

10 Dodd, Chris. 2015. Telephone interview by Jo Becker, November 25.

11 D’Souza, Amanda J., Marie Russell, Beth Wood, Louise Signal, and Dawn Elder. 2016. “Attitudes to Physical Punishment of Children Are

Changing.” Archives of Diseases in Childhood 101: 690–93.Google Scholar

12 Federal Ministry of Justice and Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (Germany). 2003. “Violence in

Upbringing: An Assessment after the Introduction of the Right to a Non-violent Upbringing.”

13 Gershoff, Elizabeth. 2002. “Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-analytic and

Theoretical Review.” Psychological Bulletin, 128 (4): 539–79.Google Scholar

14 Gillespie, Diane and Molly Melching. 2010. “The Transformative Power of Democracy and Human Rights in Nonformal Education: The

Case of Tostan.” Adult Education Quarterly 60: 477–98.Google Scholar

15 Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. n.d. Website. Accessed January 2, 2018.

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org.

16 ———. 2015a. Legal Defences for Corporal Punishment of Children Derived from English Law. London: Global Initiative. [End Page 269]

Google Scholar

17 ———. 2015b. The Positive Impact of Prohibition of Corporal Punishment on Children’s Lives: Messages from Research. London: Global

Initiative.Google Scholar

18 ———. 2015c. “States Actively Pursuing the Issue of Corporal Punishment of Children in the Universal Periodic Review: Analysis of

Sessions 1–22 (2008–2015).” Paper provided to the author by the Global Initiative.

19 ———. 2016. Corporal Punishment of Children: Review of Research on its Impact and Associations. Working paper. London: Global

Initiative.Google Scholar

20 ———. 2017. Prohibiting all Corporal Punishment of Children: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, London: Global Initiative.Google

Scholar

21 Gracia, E. and Herrero, J. 2008. “Is It Considered Violence? The Acceptability of Physical Punishment of Children in Europe.” Journal of

Marriage and Family 70: 210–17.Google Scholar

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/
5/5/2019 EBSCOhost

eds.a.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=29ad1d1f-d573-4b5f-8190-38bd56dd2509%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdeta… 11/12

22 Harris Poll. 2013. “Four in Five Americans Believe Parents Spanking Their Children Is Sometimes Appropriate.” Accessed October 22,

2017. http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-and-

life/Four%5fin%5fFive%5fAmericans%5fBelieve%5fParents%5fSpanking%5fTheir%5fChildren%5fis%5fSometimes%5fAppropriate.html.

23 Holden, G. W., P. A. Williamson, and G. W. Holland. 2014. “Eavesdropping on the Family: A Pilot Investigation of Corporal Punishment in

the Home.” Journal of Family Psychology 28 (3): 401–6.Google Scholar

24 International Labour Organization (ILO). 2017. Ending Child Labour by 2025: A Review of Policies and Programmes. Geneva: ILO.Google

Scholar

25 Janson, S. 2000. Children and Abuse—Corporal Punishment and Other Forms of Child Abuse in Sweden at the End of the Second

Millennium: A Scientific Report Prepared for the Committee on Child Abuse and Related Issues. Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Health and

Social Affairs.Google Scholar

26 Mackie, Gerry and John LeJeune. 2009. “Social Dynamics of Abandonment of Harmful Practices: A New Look at the Theory.” Innocenti

Working Paper. Florence: UNICEF.Google Scholar

27 Newell, Peter. 2015. Interview by Jo Becker, November 10.

28 Pfeiffer, Christian. 2013. “Parallel Justice—Why Do We Need Stronger Support for the Victim in Society?” Address at the 18th German

Congress on Crime Prevention, April 23. Accessed August 16, [End Page 270] 2017.

http://www.praeventionstag.de/dokumentation/download.cms?id=1471.

29 Shell-Duncan, Bettina, Ylva Hernlaund, Katherine Wander, and Amadou Moreau. 2013. “Legislating Change? Responses to

Criminalization of Female Genital Cutting in Senegal.” Law and Society Review 47: 803–35.Google Scholar

30 Trifan, Tatiana Alina, Hakan Stattin, and Lauree Tilton-Weaver. 2014. “Have Authoritarian Parenting Practices and Roles Changed in the

Last 50 Years?” Journal of Marriage and Family 76: 744–61.Google Scholar

31 UNICEF. 2003. A League Table of Child Maltreatment Deaths in Rich Nations. Florence: Innocenti Research Center.G