SPANKING  CHILDREN:  Should  it  be  abolished?  

Spanking is the act of striking the buttocks of another person to cause temporary pain without producing lasting physical injury. It generally involves a parent striking the buttocks of a small child with an open hand. This method of discipline is preferred to in some countries instead of slapping  a child in the face and in other situations, strapping on the hands, or paddling, strapping, whipping, or using a switch on the buttocks. Corporal punishment is most commonly used to discipline an infant, child, or teenager. It generally involves an adult—typically a parent, guardian, or teacher striking the child's buttocks as punishment for unacceptable behavior. A milder form of discipline is slapping a child on the back of his or her hand by the teacher with a ruler. These forms of discipline are legally referred to as corporal punishment.

The danger of slapping a child on the face is that permanent physical injury can result from this kind of discipline. Thomas Edison, the inventor of the light bulb  attributed his hearing impairment to being slapped on both of his ears by a train conductor. The slapping of his ears permanently damaged his ear drums.  

I remember regularly being hit with a ruler on the back of my hand by my piano teacher if I played a wrong note. If she thought it would improve my piano playing, she was wrong. I quit taking lessons from her and never took piano lessons from anyone else after that. 

When I worked at a young offenders facility in Alberta, Canada in the mid-1950s, corporal punishment would be administered to a child on the bare buttocks with a  leather strap if the child bullied another child or disobeyed a direct order or was extremely rude to a staff member. When I was invited to inspect a federal penitentiary in Kingston, Canada in the mid-1960s, I saw a strapping board where the inmate would be secured to it and then strapped on the bare buttocks.

When I was in school (up to grade seven in public schools and in grade eight in a private school)  I would on occasion, be strapped on the hands for bad behavior. The teachers took great care to not hit my wrists. The last time my mother strapped me on my hands was when I was 14 years of age. Our hands would sting and go numb for about ten minutes,

Many years ago when the Ontario legislators were getting ready to debate whether or not corporal punishment should be administered in schools, I was invited to make a submission to the Justice Committee of the Ontario Legislature. I denounced corporal punishment in schools as did others who appeared before the Committee. Soon after, legislation was passed that no school in Ontario was to use corporal punishment as a means of discipline.

Some countries have outlawed the spanking of children in every setting, but many still allow it at least when administered by a parent or guardian.

I am going to tell you about a court case that took place in Ontario after the father of a small uncontrollable child spanked her in public.

       David Peterson, age 39, was charged with assaulting his five-year-old daughter, Rachel Peterson, on September 5, 1994, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, (re assaults) The defence raised to the charge is under Code section 43 that reads as follows:

43. Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

          The background of the incident was as follows:

         David Peterson and his wife, Paula Peterson, lived in Warrenville, Illinois. They had two small children, Rachel, who was aged five in September of the year this incident occurred and who was the recipient of the spanking in question, and William, then almost two years of age. On September 4th, they had visited Niagara Falls, and then began their journey back home, intending to pass through London, Ontario. They decided to stay over at a hotel in London. The next morning, the family drove to a restaurant in their full-sized, four-door car which was parked in front of the Olive Garden some 25 ft. or 30 ft. from the front entrance. The family went into the restaurant to have lunch with the children.

         Almost immediately, young Rachel started to misbehave. She started to fight with her brother. Her father told her to stop. Contrary to this instruction, Rachel persisted in fighting, and being aggressive; indeed, she proceeded to push young William out the open car door and he landed on his bottom on the pavement. The boy picked himself up and then started to reach out with the intention of getting back into the car. Rachel was now told by her father not to close the heavy door, but this second instruction was ignored and she slammed the door shut, catching her brother’s fingers in the door in the process. William screamed, as one might expect and his screaming got the attention of some of the people in the restaurant.

          The father promptly got out of the front seat and went to the rear passenger door to extricate the boy’s fingers. The father became excited and concerned. Finding that he could not get the boy’s fingers loose from the outside, he went back into the front of the car to unlock the power locks, and open the door from inside. Now, the father’s immediate concern was whether or not his son having his fingers jammed in the car door caused any injury to young William’s hand. The father tended to his son. He ultimately decided the hand of his was not injured and it was not necessary to take William to hospital.

         To say that he was angry at the conduct of his daughter at that particular time is an understatement, to be sure. He again scolded her for fighting with her brother. Knowing his daughter’s nature and knowing she had defied his instructions, as a result of which her brother had been hurt, her father decided Rachel deserved a spanking for her misbehavior and told her this and why.

His judgment call on disciplining his daughter this way was in accordance with the family’s home discipline policy. He then went into the back seat to do the spanking, but Rachel, knowing what was coming, resisted; that is, she squirmed around, hollered and kicked at her father, so that, in the confined space of the back seat of the car, it was virtually impossible to carry out the spanking. In the beginning, the father intended to spank the child over her clothes but, because her misbehavior continued, he now decided to take her out of the car and administer the spanking on her bare bottom. He carried her out of the car, and turning her over, placed her on the trunk of the car, stomach down, with her legs towards him. He then pulled down sufficient of her clothing to bare her bottom, and then struck her a number of times with the flat or palm of his hand. When he had finished, he told Rachel, who was now quite naturally crying, to go into the restaurant to her mother, which the child did.

Haley Gorsline was, on this particular day, the hostess at the Olive Garden; her duties consisted of greeting patrons at the front door as they came and went. She said she saw a hand go up and down in the back of the car and she heard a child crying. She said she saw the child’s father spanking the child, while the child was between his legs, and she observed the spanking of the child on the trunk of the car. According to her, the child was subjected to twelve slaps on her buttocks but according to another witness, it was only done six times.

To make a long story short, the father was arrested and charged with the offence of inflicting corporal punishment on a child when the physical force used is unreasonable.

Rachel was examined by a pediatrician, at the Children’s Hospital in London. She found the child to be healthy and normal and a physical examination of the child revealed that she suffered from no injury and she found no bruising, or mark of any kind on her buttocks.

    The Crown (prosecutor) pointed to several aspects of the evidence that demonstrates that the defendant was angry, and that his anger was out of control. The Crown also referred to the observations in this regard of three witnesses. The Crown argued, for example, that the spanking on the car was not given for the purpose of correcting the child, but was meted out because Rachel had balked at being spanked inside the car. The Crown added that what happened in the car was sufficient punishment, and it was only because the girl was still being recalcitrant, that had angered her father further, which then resulted in the elevated punishment on the child’s bare bottom taking place on the hood of the car.  

Well, I have to say that I don’t believe that the witnesses were fully aware as to why the father was having difficulty in spanking the child in the back seat of the car and instead chose to spank her on the hood of the car where it would be easier to administer the spanking.

Judge Menzies said;

“I have no doubt, in these circumstances, that David Peterson was upset and angry with Rachel. It is unrealistic to assume that parents discipline their children, whatever the nature of the infraction, in a state of detached calm. Anger is part and parcel of correction of a child. What is relevant is not whether the parent is upset, distraught, frustrated, annoyed or angry, but whether the parent is in control of his or her anger or emotions.

“The theory of the defence is that the father’s response, in deciding a spanking was necessary, and in carrying it out, was controlled and measured. The defence pointed to parts of the evidence to support this contention; there was, for example, no shouting, or swearing accompanying the spanking; the father didn’t “lose it”, as the saying goes. I agree with Mr. Menear’s (father’s lawyer) submissions, and references to the evidence, on this point. I find the father’s conduct in administering the spanking was controlled and measured.

“I accept the father’s evidence in this regard. David Peterson was understandably upset and angry, but the spanking was given, I find, for corrective purposes, not on the basis of the father lashing out at the child because he had lost control of himself. Likewise, I accept the defendant’s evidence about why he felt it was necessary to mete out the family’s most severe punishment, that is, a bare bottomed spanking. Both Mr. and Mrs. Peterson said they reserved this severest form of discipline for cases where not only was there open disobedience, but where what the child did, in contravention to instruction, involved a risk of harm to the child itself, a sibling or others. The parents spoke of the only other time such a spanking had been given, and that was once when they were camping; in this instance, Rachel had disobeyed some instruction about not going near or touching a campfire. Again, as I have said before, the discipline routine or concepts of the Petersons seem reasonable, and designed to properly correct and educate their children.

“On the date in question, Rachel was being repeatedly disobedient, the result of which caused harm or hurt to her brother. I accept the defendant’s explanation of the reason for spanking. I find, an honest and reasonably held belief, that it was necessary in the interest of the child’s correction.”

“Lastly, I advert to the question I put to counsel in argument about the onus in the case. Here, the Crown must prove the assault (the spanking) beyond a reasonable doubt; no issue arises that five-year-old Rachel was spanked; but where the defence leads credible evidence from which a finding can be made, as the court has here done, that the force applied to the child was for correction; and where, as here, the defence leads credible evidence from which, as here, a finding can be made that the force used did not exceed what was reasonable, then the exculpatory provisions of section 43 have been satisfied, as I have found, and it cannot be found then that an unlawful assault has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For these reasons then, I find the defendant, David Peterson, has raised a reasonable doubt on the charge of assaulting his daughter, Rachel, and the charge against him must, therefore, be dismissed.” unquote

        It is unfortunate that the prosecutor hadn’t considered that the spanking was justified when the case was first brought to his attention. Normally when the police are apprised of a possible crime having been committed, they will consult with a prosecutor to see if the charge is justified. A smart prosecutor would have recognized right away that in this particular instance, the spanking was justified and legal and then told the police that there would be no trial and the father should be free to return home.  Alas, the prosecutor was too stupid to think that far ahead.                                                                                                                                                                                                        

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Criminal Code provision dealing with spanking by a 6-3 margin in a landmark 2004 ruling. The high court ruled that the provision did not infringe a child’s right to security of the person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Several private members’ bills to ban corporal punishment have failed in the House of Commons and Senate, most recently in 2008.

I have two daughters. They are grown up and have children of their own. I only spanked one of my daughters and on that occasion she deserved it. When she was four years of age and our youngest daughter was only a couple of months old, her older sister repeatedly pinched her when the youngest was in her crib. For the next four nights, I gently spanked my oldest daughter on her bare buttocks without giving a reason for doing it. After I spanked her on the fourth night, I asked her if she knew why I was spanking her. She said that she didn’t know. I then said to her; “Your little sister doesn’t know why you are pinching her either. Now do you know why I didn’t tell you why I spanked you?” She replied, “Because my little sister didn’t know why I wasn’t pinching her.” I never had to spank her again and I never spanked her sister either. Both of my daughters are extremely good friends and were good friends while they were growing up.

Back in 1959 when I was a senior supervisor at a residential school for retarded children in Toronto, it was brought to my attention that a five-year-old boy was constantly throwing rolls of toilet paper into the bowl of the toilet. I spanked him each of the four times he did it. After each spanking, he cried out, “I love you.” It was after the fourth and final spanking that I suddenly realized why he kept throwing the rolls of toilet paper into the bowl of the toilet. He felt that he was unloved and ignored and was willing to suffer from the pain of a spanking if it meant that he wouldn’t be ignored anymore and instead be loved. I felt really sorry for what I had done to him and immediately I hugged him and told him that all of us loved him. After that, we gave him the attention and love he needed and he never threw rolls of toilet paper into the bowl of the toilet again.