The decision yesterday by the European Court of Justice to admit the case of a 12 year old English boy who was beaten by his stepfather and claims that he should have been protected by the law may, if the final decision is in his favour, lead to corporal punishment being made a crime in Britain. It is already banned in state schools, and parent's who use it excessively can be prosecuted for assault.
But the question relevant in this State too is whether the intrusion of the law into the relations between parents and their children in this manner is an abuse of legal process and whether, on balance, it is likely to make childhood happier or simply make family relations more complicated. Some clear distinctions need to be made at a time when widespread anger is focused on the sexual abuse or physical degradation of children or culpable neglect. These are absolute forms of wrong doing, with the certainty of long term damage to the child's psyche.
Physical punishment falls into a different category, ranging from a perverted addiction (obviously a form of abuse) to a non routine infliction of moderate pain for obvious misdemeanours. To equate the two extremes makes no sense in logic, and to some extent vitiates the contention that there is a direct link between the use of violence on a child and the perpetuation of violence in society. It is easy to contend that a given child, treated more or less brutally, will act accordingly when older, but this is obvious nonsense when made a general rule.
At the same time, most parents would insist that to use corporal punishment on any occasion is an admission of failure of upbringing and harms the dignity of both the adult and the child. But they would also probably agree that that is a counsel of perfection. It is arguable that other forms of psychological behaviour by adults towards their children an icy exclusion, harping criticism or some forms of non physical punishment can have longer and more damaging effects on the young mind than an occasional cuff. It would be difficult to frame legislation to cover all such possibilities.
In the case brought to Strasbourg, the mother is reported to have said that the boy was "totally out of control" and had "run riot" since he was two. He was beaten for knifing a younger child, and, it may be, had no need to take lessons in violence. The details, such as they are, suggest a family that was close to despair and in urgent need of outside support and advice. A punitive method applying a cut and dried answer that is unlikely to restore relationships could in the long run be to the child's disadvantage.
If parents' power over children is rightly condemned, is the solution to hand a power to children that can be used arbitrarily and subjectively and possibly out of proportion to the offence? Corporal punishment is wrong in principle, and anyone who advocates it actively can probably be suspected of ulterior motives. But it is not invariably harmful, and the correct way of eliminating it from society is to provide counselling and an approach based on reasoning that is more likely to reinforce a parent's sense of responsibility than criminalisation. Where violent assault is involved, it is a different matter.