Spare the rod, save the child: corporal punishment

Prior to a recent legal reform, the Criminal Code allowed the use of 'moderate' corporal punishment within the concept of lawful correction, but the 2014 amendment prohibited all corporal punishment of children

Parents must not allow stress to translate into violent methods of correcting their children
Parents must not allow stress to translate into violent methods of correcting their children

Last week’s call by family minister Michael Farrugia for a complete ban on corporal punishment, raised a few eyebrows seeing as it had already been prohibited in an amendment to the Criminal Code in 2014.

In comments to this newsroom, paediatrician Kevin Borg however said some laws still require updating to bring them into line with the prohibition of corporal punishment. 

He said Article 154 of the Civil Code states that a parent may be deprived of the rights of parental authority ‘if the parent, exceeding the bounds of reasonable chastisement, ill-treats the child, or neglects his education,’ and the Criminal Code includes a reference to lawful correction in article 229.’

“In light of the 2014 reform to article 339 of the Criminal Code, these provisions no longer amount to a defence for the use of corporal punishment in childrearing. Nevertheless, they should be amended/repealed to as to achieve absolute consistency in law.” 

In February 2014, Parliament passed Criminal Code (Amendment No. 3) Act 2014, which amends article 339 of the Criminal Code to effectively prohibit all corporal punishment of children. Prior to reform, the Code had allowed the use of “moderate” corporal punishment within the concept of lawful correction.

The 2014 amendment added a proviso to the original section, qualifying the preceding statement by stating that “punishment of any kind shall always be deemed to exceed the bounds of moderation.”

In a research paper which he co-authored with Deborah Hodes in 2014, Borg had observed that “although immediate obedience is usually obtained as a result of physical punishment, the child does not learn the desired behaviour and thus it has to be repeated, at times at greater intensity, in order to achieve similar results. Physical punishment has also been associated with a number of other negative outcomes including an increased risk of anti-social behaviour and mental health problems as adults as well as an increased risk of physical abuse to one’s partner and/or children.”

The study had collected the results from published research on outcomes of physical punishment and found it to be contradictory, making arriving at evidence-based conclusions difficult. 

“Some still argue that ‘no amount of research can undermine parents’ right to act on their instincts.’ On the other hand the American Academy of Paediatrics, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have all recommended against using physical punishment, especially with younger children, due to the risk of escalation to physical abuse.” The study advises emphasising “other modes of discipline that are equally effective.” 

Describing the change in Maltese law as “a very positive step” against violence in children, it warns that the next challenge will lie in implementing this law effectively, whilst bearing in mind that other disciplinary regimes can be equally damaging if they turn into emotional abuse or neglect. 

“The ultimate aim in changing the law is not to increase prosecution of parents for minor assaults, but to create more awareness towards children’s rights and to create a society which does not tolerate any form of violence,” the study explains. 

So what can parents do to discipline their children? 

Parenting is a stressful business and has changed a great deal in the past generation but parents must not allow this to translate into violent methods of correcting their children, advises educational and child psychologist Louis John Camilleri. 

Misbehaviour is often the result of frustration or the inability to understand rules, Camilleri explained. “If a child is very young, communicating the fact that their behaviour is not correct must be in line with their level of understanding.” 

“I don’t think it [corporal punishment] is the right tool for the task. It should be avoided as it teaches violence as a coping strategy.”  Moreover, studies have shown that corporal punishment doesn’t lead to the correction of unacceptable incidents. “It doesn’t even stop them.” 

“A little smack on the thigh is only a short-term fix and will cause long-term damage, much like smoking.” The aim should be avoiding an escalation, he explains.

There is no single technique that can be championed as “the way” to regulate child behaviour, the psychologist points out. “Old-school techniques, such as placing misbehaving children on ‘time-outs’ or making them sit on the ‘naughty chair’ may have some merit with very young children, but are still less effective than positive reinforcement and describing their behaviour to them while pointing out why the behaviour is wrong.”

“Provide boundaries but then be responsive and explain what the child will gain by staying within them and why you would be disappointed by its crossing them,” he advises. “This encourages empathic and critical thinking.” 

Losing one’s patience is going to happen, Camilleri says. “It’s not ideal, but its understandable. Corporal punishment is a generational problem – we see our parents and copy their methods. But today we have access to far more information than they ever did.” 

He advises parents to pull out of situations where they are about to lose their cool, adding that once the situation has de-escalated, it becomes easier to reflect on what caused the challenging behaviour and use this information to prepare for future situations. “We don’t want to create a society where problems are tackled using violence. We want children to question the status quo.” A measured reaction to challenging behaviour should actually lessen the stress on the parents in the long run, Dr. Camilleri adds. 

He encouraged parents to seek out professionals who can help give context to the child’s actions and advise them on how to correct it. The government provides some services for free, including the Child Guidance Clinic (CGC), which deals mostly with problems of a psychiatric nature, as well as Appogg and Sedqa, which deal mostly with social problems. The Church-affiliated Cana movement also offers a course on parenting skills.

Positive Reinforcement:

Positive reinforcement of good behaviour is adding something that will motivate the child to increase the likelihood they will engage in that behaviour again.

Examples: A mother praising her son (positive stimulus) for doing his homework or for cleaning up toys (behaviour).

Negative Reinforcement:

Negative is not to be confused with punishment. 

Example: Child does the dishes (behaviour) in order to avoid his mother nagging (negative stimulus), or can leave the dinner table (negative stimulus) after eating 2 bites of broccoli (behaviour).

Positive Punishment: 

This presents a negative consequence to undesired behaviour, disincentivising it. 

Examples: A child talks in class (behaviour) and is reprimanded by the teacher (negative stimulus) in front of his classmates.

A child grabs a toy from another child (behaviour) and is sent to time out (negative stimulus)

Negative Punishment:

Negative punishment involves the removal of the desired stimulus after an episode of bad behaviour, acting as a disincentive.

Example: Siblings fight (behaviour) over who gets to play with a new toy, so the parent removes the toy (desired stimulus).

The aim of punishment should always be to reduce the undesired behaviour. Research shows that positive consequences are more powerful than negative consequences for improving behaviour.