Corporal Punishment

Anti-Corporal Punishment Movement

Although studies indicate that public support for corporal punishment in the United States has markedly decreased since 1968, the majority of adults still believe it is an appropriate disciplinary measure (Bryan and Freed 1982; Straus and Mathur 1996). Its practice, however, was sharply criticized by a growing contingent of scholars, activists, social workers, lawmakers, and medical practitioners during the last three decades of the twentieth century. It can be argued that this challenge to corporal punishment can be identified as a [Page 316]social movement. The three-part message of the anticorporal punishment social movement to the public is clear: Corporal punishment is a form of injustice, corporal punishment is harmful, and corporal punishment should be legally prohibited.

In this undated engraving, a schoolmaster spanks a pupil. Although the use of corporal punishment is now banned in schools across the United States and in many other nations, debate about its use continues.

© Bettmann/Corbis; used with permission.

The anti-corporal punishment social movement is comprised of a loose network of organizations, groups, and individuals peppered throughout the United States and abroad. Some of the more prominent organizations involved include Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education (PTAVE), The Center for Effective Discipline, and End Physical Punishment of Children Worldwide (EPOCH-Worldwide), which is an informal alliance of international organizations. In addition, there are two research centers that have had a marked influence on the anti-corporal punishment debate, including the Family Research Laboratory and The National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives (NCSPCA).

But why is corporal punishment challenged? After all, corporal punishment is not abusive. It is a disciplinary measure that is not intended to injure but is used to correct or control a child's behavior (Straus and Donnelly 1993). Anti-corporal punishment advocates contend that the distinction between corporal punishment and abuse helps to perpetuate a social and legal double standard. That is, children are not afforded the same protections from physical strikes against their bodies afforded to their adult counterparts. Specifically, physical discipline between parents and their children is legally permissible. Yet the same action would represent a criminal assault between adults or a stranger and a child (Bollenbacher and Burtt 1997).

For some, a social movement that calls for the end of corporal punishment is a novel idea, while for others it represents an absurd invasion of parental privilege. Yet the anti-corporal punishment movement's agenda is not new, nor is its ideology ahistorical. Rather, the message concerning the physical integrity and emotional well-being of children has its roots in a children's rights initiative that has evolved over the last 100 years. Indeed, preserving the sanctity of childhood and protecting the physical and emotional well-being of children has been the bedrock of this initiative.

...