2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment

Those who oppose corporal punishment do not normally do so on the basis
of a single argument. Usually they muster a battery of reasons to
support their view. They do not root their arguments in particular
theories of punishment -- theories that justify the institution of
punishment -- and say why corporal punishment fails to meet the
theoretical requirements. In many cases, this may be because they lack a
theory of punishment. However, it should be said in their favor that
having a theory of punishment is little help, by itself, in determining
whether corporal punishment is ever morally acceptable. This is because
the traditional theories of punishment in themselves do not commit one
to accepting or rejecting corporal punishment. A number of issues
mediate the application of the theories to the question of corporal
punishment. For example, for consequentialist theories of punishment,
the relevant considerations include the effectiveness of corporal
punishment, either as a deterrent or reform, and the extent of any
adverse side effects. For retributivists, punishment is justified if it
is deserved. Retributivists are not concerned about the consequences of
punishment, but they do consider the means of punishment. Thus, an
important question for them is whether corporal punishment is an
unacceptably cruel or degrading form of punishment. Retributivism per se
says nothing about what constitutes an unacceptable form of punishment,
just as utilitarianism itself cannot tell what kinds of punishment are
effective or harmful. Thus we cannot turn to the theories themselves for
answers to these questions. I shall not probe the theoretical
foundations or venture any view about which theory of punishment is
correct. This is because I take the theoretical background to be largely
beyond the scope of this paper. There is a vast literature on whether
punishment can be justified and I cannot hope to contribute to that
here. Instead, I restrict my attention to the question of corporal
punishment.

The arguments raised by those who believe that corporal punishment
should never be inflicted are that corporal punishment 1) leads to
abuse; 2) is degrading; 3) is psychologically damaging; 4) stems from
and causes sexual deviance; 5) teaches the wrong lesson; 6) arises from
and causes poor relationships between teachers (or parents) and
children; and 7) does not deter. I shall now consider each of these
arguments in turn.4
a. Corporal punishment leads to abuse

Opponents of corporal punishment make regular reference to the frequency
and severity of physical punishments that are inflicted upon children.
They suggest that corporal punishment "escalates into battering,"5 or at
least increases the risk that those who punish will "cross the line to
physical abuse."6

Clearly there are instances of abuse and of abusive physical punishment.
But that is insufficient to demonstrate even a correlation between
corporal punishment and abuse, and a fortiori a causal relationship.
Research into possible links between corporal punishment and abuse has
proved inconclusive so far. Some studies have suggested that abusive
parents use corporal punishment more than nonabusive parents, but other
studies have shown this not to be the case.7 The findings of one study,8
conducted a year after corporal punishment by parents was abolished in
Sweden, suggested that Swedish parents were as prone to serious abuse of
their children as were parents in the United States, where corporal
punishment was (and is) widespread. These findings are far from
decisive, but they caution us against hasty conclusions about the
abusive effects of corporal punishment.

The fact that there are some parents and teachers who inflict physical
punishment in an abusive way does not entail the conclusion that
corporal punishment should never be inflicted by anybody. If it did have
this entailment, then, for example, the consumption of any alcohol by
anybody prior to driving would have to be condemned on the grounds that
some people cannot control how much alcohol they consume before driving.
Just as we prohibit the excessive but not the moderate use of alcohol
prior to driving, so should we condemn the abusive but not the
nonabusive use of corporal punishment.
b. Corporal punishment is degrading

One argument that is intended as an attack on both mild and severe cases
of corporal punishment makes the claim that physically punishing people
degrades them. I understand degradation to involve a lowering of
somebody's standing, where the relevant sense of standing has to do with
how others regard one, and how one regards oneself. It is the interplay
between the way we understand how others view us and the way that we
view ourselves that produces feelings such as shame. Thus one way in
which one might be degraded is by being shamed.

In order to respond satisfactorily to the objection that corporal
punishment is degrading, clarification is required about whether the
term "degrade" is taken to have a normative content, or, in other words,
whether it is taken to embody a judgment of wrongfulness. If it is not,
then it will not be sufficient to show that corporal punishment is
degrading. It will have to be shown that it is unacceptably so before it
can be judged to be wrong on those grounds. If, by contrast, "degrade"
is taken to embody a judgment of wrongfulness then a demonstration that
corporal punishment is degrading will suffice to show that it is wrong.
But then the argumentative work will have to be done in showing that
corporal punishment is degrading because it will have to be shown that
it amounts to an unacceptable lowering of somebody's standing.

Either way, the vexing question is whether corporal punishment involves
an unacceptable lowering of somebody's standing. Here it is noteworthy
that there are other forms of punishment that lower people's standing
even more than corporal punishment, and yet are not subject to similar
condemnation. Consider, for example, various indignities attendant upon
imprisonment, including severe invasions of privacy (such as
strip-searches and ablution facilities that require relieving oneself in
full view of others) as well as imposed subservience to prison wardens,
guards, and even to more powerful fellow inmates. My intuitions suggest
that this lowering of people's standing surpasses that implicit in
corporal punishment per se, even though it is obviously the case that
corporal punishment could be meted out in a manner in which it were
aggravated. If corporal punishment is wrong because it involves
violating the intimate zone of a person's body, then surely the extreme
invasions of prison inmates' privacy, which seem worse, would also be
wrong. It is true that corporal punishment involves the application of
direct and intense power to the body, but I do not see how that
constitutes a more severe lowering of somebody's standing than employing
indirect and mild power in the course of a strip-search, for example. It
is true too that the prison invasions of privacy to which I have
referred would be inflicted on adults whereas corporal punishment would
be imposed on children, but again I fail to see how that difference
makes physical punishment of children worse. In the case of young
children especially, it seems that the element of shame would be less
than that of adults given that the capacities for shame increase between
the time one is a toddler and the time one becomes an adult. Therefore,
if we think that current practices in prison life are not wrong on
grounds of degradation, then we cannot consistently say that all
corporal punishment is wrong on these grounds.
c. Corporal punishment is psychologically damaging

It is claimed that corporal punishment has numerous adverse
psychological effects, including depression, inhibition, rigidity,
lowered self-esteem and heightened anxiety.9

Although there is evidence that excessive corporal punishment can
significantly increase the chances of such psychological harm, most of
the psychological data are woefully inadequate to the task of
demonstrating that mild and infrequent corporal punishment has such
consequences. One opponent of corporal punishment who has provided data
on even mild and infrequent physical chastisement is Murray Straus.10
His research, which is much more sophisticated than most earlier
investigations into corporal punishment, does lend support to the view
that even infrequent noninjurious corporal punishment can increase one's
chances of being depressed. However, for two reasons this research is
inadequate to the task of demonstrating that mild corporal punishment is
wrong. First, the studies are not conclusive. The main methodological
problem is that the studies are not experiments but post facto
investigations based on self-reports.11 Murray Straus recognizes this12
but nevertheless thinks that the studies are compelling. The second
point is that even if Professor Straus's findings are valid, the nature
of the data is insufficiently marked to justify a moral condemnation of
mild and infrequent corporal punishment. For instance, the increase of
depression, according to his study, is not substantial for rare physical
punishment. The increments on his Mean Symptoms Index of depression are
only slight for one or two instances of corporal punishment during one's
teen years. The increments are somewhat more substantial for three to
nineteen incidents of corporal punishment but, surprisingly, for twenty
to twenty-nine incidents the Mean Symptoms Index falls again nearly to
the level of two episodes of corporal punishment.13 The chances of
having suicidal thoughts, according to this study, decreases marginally
with one incident of corporal punishment during adolescence, then rises
slightly for three to five episodes of corporal punishment. For ten to
nineteen instances of physical punishment the likelihood of having
suicidal thoughts is approximately the same as it is for those who are
not beaten at all during adolescence. The probability increases markedly
for more than twenty-nine episodes of physical punishment during one's
teens,14 as one would expect when many beatings are administered.
Professor Straus does not provide data about how physical punishment
during (preteen) childhood affects the likelihood of depression, which
would have been interesting given that one might expect corporal
punishment to be psychologically more damaging to adolescents than to
younger children.

Given that even the data suggesting that very rare instances of mild
corporal punishment do have some negative effects also suggest that the
effects are not substantial, there is a strong likelihood that they
could be overridden by other considerations in a consequentialist
calculation. In other words, showing some negative effects is not
sufficient to make a consequentialist case against all corporal
punishment. Other considerations, including possible advantages of
corporal punishment, would have to be taken into account. Moreover,
because the available evidence shows no serious harm from mild and
infrequent corporal punishment, there seem to be poor grounds for
suggesting that for retributivists the punishment should be regarded as
unacceptably severe.
d. Corporal punishment stems from and causes sexual deviance

Those who want to outlaw corporal punishment often argue that there are
disturbing sexual undercurrents in the practice.15 This objection is, in
part, a special instance of the argument about adverse psychological
effects. In part it is a separate, but related objection. The argument
is that corporal punishment stems from some sexual perversity (on the
part of the person inflicting the punishment) and can in turn cause
sexual deviance (in the person punished). In some versions of this
argument, it is claimed that sadomasochistic relationships can develop
between the beater and the beaten. In other versions, only one party --
usually but not always the beater -- may experience sexual excitement
through the beating. The beaten person may become sexually repressed. It
is no accident, the argument goes, that the buttocks are often chosen as
the site on the body to which the punishment is administered.

Those who advance the objection that corporal punishment fosters
masochism are rarely clear about the nature of the masochistic
inclinations that they say are produced. Yet, it is crucial to be clear
about this. Studies show that most people have been sexually aroused,
either in fantasy or in practice, by at least some mild masochistic
activity, such as restraint or play fights.16 Thus, some masochistic
tendencies seem to be statistically normal. That does not preclude their
being undesirable, but it is hard to see how, in an era of increased
tolerance of diversity in sexual orientation and practice, we can
consistently label mild masochism as perverse. If such inclinations
increase opportunities for sexual pleasure without concomitant harms,
then there is at least a prima facie case for the view that such
inclinations are not to be regretted. And if one objects to those
masochistic inclinations that seek gratification in more serious pain,
injury, and bondage, there is no evidence of which I am aware that mild
and infrequent corporal punishment fosters such inclinations. The
available evidence linking corporal punishment and masochism makes the
connection only with milder forms of masochistic fantasy and practice.

It is, of course, a concern that some parents or teachers might derive
sexual gratification from beating children, but is it a reason to
eliminate or ban the practice? Someone might suggest that it is, if the
anticipated sexual pleasure led to beatings that were inappropriate --
either because children were beaten when they should not have been, or
if the punishment were administered in an improper manner. However, if
this is the concern, surely the fitting response would be to place
limitations on the use of the punishment and, at least in schools, to
monitor and enforce compliance. Here we are not without examples to
follow. For example, given the intimacy of a medical examination, the
doctor-patient relationship is one that is prone to sexual
undercurrents. Needless to say, it is a disturbing thought that doctors
may be sexually aroused while examining patients, but we cannot (easily)
monitor that. Our response then, is to lay down guidelines to curb any
abuses that might ensue. I am aware that medical examinations are
necessary in a way in which corporal punishment is not, but corporal
punishment might nonetheless fulfill an important function.
e. Corporal punishment teaches the wrong lesson

It is often said that punishing a wrongdoer by inflicting pain conveys
the message that violence is an appropriate way to settle differences or
to respond to problems.17 One teaches the child that if one dislikes
what somebody does, it is acceptable to inflict pain on that person.

This implicit message is believed to reach the level of a contradiction
in those cases where the child is hit for having committed some act of
violence -- like assaulting another child. Where this happens, it is
claimed, the child is given the violent message that violence is wrong.
The child is told that he was wrong to commit an act of violence and yet
the parent or the teacher conveys this message through violence.

Not only are such messages thought to be wrong in themselves, but it is
claimed that they are then acted upon by the child who is hit.18 In the
short term, those who are physically punished are alleged to commit
violence against other children, against teachers and against school
property.19 As far as long term effects are concerned, it is alleged
that significant numbers of people who commit crimes were physically
punished as children. It is these arguments that lie behind the adage
"violence breeds violence." Three defenses of (limited) corporal
punishment can be advanced against this objection.

First, there is a reductio ad absurdum. The argument about the message
implicit in violence seems to prove too much. If we suggest that hitting
a wrongdoer imparts the message that violence is a fitting means to
resolve conflict, then surely we should be committed to saying that
detaining a child or imprisoning a convict conveys the message that
restricting liberty is an appropriate manner to deal with people who
displease one. We would also be required to concede that fining people
conveys the message that forcing others to give up some of their
property is an acceptable way to respond to those who act in a way that
one does not like. If beatings send a message, why don't detentions,
imprisonments, fines, and a multitude of other punishments convey
equally undesirable messages? The argument proves too much because it
proves that all punishment conveys inappropriate messages and so is
wrong. It is a reductio because this conclusion is absurd. Those who
want to replace punishment with therapy would not be immune to the
reductio either. Providing therapy would convey the message that people
with whom one disagrees are to be viewed as sick and deserving of
treatment.

This leads to the second argument. The objection takes too crude a view
of human psychology and the message that punishment can impart. There is
all the difference in the world between legitimate authorities -- the
judiciary, parents, or teachers -- using punitive powers responsibly to
punish wrongdoing, and children or private citizens going around beating
each other, locking each other up, and extracting financial tributes
(such as lunch money). There is a vast moral difference here and there
is no reason why children should not learn about it. Punishing children
when they do wrong seems to be one important way of doing this. To
suggest that children and others cannot extract this message, but only
the cruder version that the objection suggests, is to underestimate the
expressive function of punishment and people's ability to comprehend it.

There is a possible response to my arguments. Perhaps it is true that,
conceptually, the message that punishment conveys is more sophisticated.
Nevertheless, those who are beaten do commit violence against others. It
might not be that they got this message from the punishment, but that
being subject to the willful infliction of pain causes rage and this
gets vented through acts of violence on others. This brings me to my
third response. There is insufficient evidence that the properly
restricted use of corporal punishment causes increased violence.
Although Murray Straus's study suggests that there is a correlation
between rare corporal punishment and increased violence, the study has
some significant defects, as I noted earlier, and the significance of
his findings has been questioned in the light of other studies.20
Nevertheless, Professor Straus's findings cannot be ignored and they
suggest that further research, this time of an experimental sort, should
be conducted. Note again, however, that even if it were shown that there
is some increase in violence, something more is required in order to
make a moral case against the corporal punishment that causes it. On a
consequentialist view, for example, one would have to show that this
negative effect is not overridden by any benefits there might be to
corporal punishment.
f. Corporal punishment, pupils, teachers, and authority

Next there is a cluster of arguments about the relationship between
corporal punishment and teacher-pupil relations.21 These arguments make
reference to what physical punishment says about such relations, what it
does to them, and the impact that this has on education.

First, it is claimed that for a teacher to employ corporal punishment
indicates that the teacher has failed to discourage pupil wrongdoing in
other ways -- by moral authority, by a system of rewards, or by milder
punishments.

I am sympathetic to the claim that far too many teachers fail to foster
an atmosphere of mutual respect between their pupils and themselves.
They lack the ability or the inclination verbally to communicate
expectations to children -- first gently and then more strenuously. They
do not first employ milder forms of punishment but rather resort to the
cane in the first instance. Some might not believe in rewarding good
behavior, only in punishing bad. However, from the claim that corporal
punishment often indicates teacher failure, we cannot infer that it
necessarily demonstrates such failure or even that as a matter of fact
it always does. It is true that when the teacher resorts to corporal
punishment this indicates that his prior efforts to discourage the
wrongdoing failed. However, there is a big difference between this, a
failure in the pupil, and a failure in the teacher. In either case it is
true, in some sense, that the teacher failed to discourage the child
from doing wrong -- failed to prevent failure in the child. However, it
is not a failure for which the teacher necessarily is responsible. I am
well aware that the responsibility for children's wrongdoing is all too
often placed exclusively at the door of children themselves, without due
attention to the influences to which they are subjected. However, there
is a danger that in rejecting this incorrect evaluation, teachers (and
parents) will be blamed for all shortcomings in children.

This argument can be strengthened further. If we say that corporal
punishment indicates the failure of prior efforts, then we must concede
that the immediately prior efforts -- say, detaining the child --
equally indicate the failure of the still earlier efforts --admonition
-- that indicate the failure of yet earlier efforts -- moral example.
Once we see this, it becomes clearer why, although it is the case that
earlier efforts may have failed, it is not sufficient to say that the
failure is in the teacher. To reject this would lead to the conclusion
that the teacher is responsible for the child's not following the
teacher's moral example. We can now also see why the argument that
corporal punishment indicates failure is as much an argument against any
of the prior attempts (except the first) to prevent wrongdoing.

Just as school corporal punishment is seen by its opponents as
originating in failed pedagogical relationships, so it is believed to
compromise them further. Thus it is perceived as exacerbating the very
problems from which it arises. The pupils, it is said, begin to fear
their teachers and view them as enemies rather than concerned custodians
charged with furthering their well-being and development, both mental
and otherwise. Education does not thrive in an atmosphere in which
children live in fear of those who teach them.22 This opens the way for
another objection in this cluster of arguments-that physically punishing
children leads to an unquestioning acceptance of authority. If children
fear their teachers, they are unlikely to ask questions or challenge
views that their teachers present to them. The idea here is that
children can be beaten into submission to authority.

Again, I have some sympathy for these arguments -- if they are seen to
be making the weaker claim that sometimes (even often) teacher-pupil
relations are damaged by corporal punishment. I agree too that children
can and have been beaten into unquestioning acceptance of authority.
Where teachers regularly resort to using the cane and then use it with
excessive force, I can well imagine their relationships with their
pupils being compromised. Teachers who regularly and severely hit pupils
are feared, not respected (though characteristically such teachers are
unable to distinguish between the two). In such circumstances it would
not surprise me at all if the inquiring, critical capacities of children
were dampened or extinguished. However, I disagree that these are
inevitable consequences of corporal punishment per se. I cannot see any
reason for thinking that infrequent and mild corporal punishment would
be likely to have any of these effects.

Furthermore, we should note that it is not only corporal punishment that
can impact negatively on the educational relationship. Children who are
frequently detained, banished from the classroom, or even rebuked
(especially when this is done scathingly and publicly) can suffer
feelings of alienation from their teachers. One does not have to resort
to sticks to force children into submission. The tongue can do just as
well. My argument here is not to justify one evil by the existence of
another. The point is that just as in these cases we attack the excesses
not the practices themselves, so should we attack only the abusive use
of corporal punishment.

It makes a big difference not only how frequently and severely corporal
punishment is inflicted, but also the kinds of behavior for which it is
administered. Where children are beaten for expressing unpopular ideas
or for asking too many questions, the argument that it will lead to
subservience to authority is greatly strengthened. Similarly, if
children are paddled for not displaying servile deference to teachers,
the relationship between them and their teachers is sure to suffer.
However, if children are punished for genuine wrongdoing -- lying,
cheating, stealing, bullying -- then the message is that this behavior
is unacceptable. Teachers can foster critical inquiry and support the
right to express even unpopular opinions, while at the same time
punishing genuine wrongdoing. Children are able to distinguish between
these.

--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, ³I am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03

Archived from group: misc>kids