Child laws are fuelling rise in smacking, warns NSPCC
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2170291,00.html
Sunday September 16, 2007 The Observer
Summary:
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) wants government to change the law that states that aprents are allowed to smack children as long as it doesnt leave a mark. They claim this law doesn’t really avoid child abuse, hasn’t made any difference in the number of times child abuse occurs and can be used to emotionally torture the child by such comments as ‘I can still hit you without leaving a mark’. As it is the law is essentially useless to them. It leaves no basis for persecution of those who abuse children in a way that 'leaves no mark', the suspect's lawyer could actually use this law in his client's favor...
Comment:
As a child I have had the occasional spanking if I had deserved it, though never without good reason and never to an extent that would leave bruises or pshycological damage. This in my opinion is tolerable as I came out none the worse. Still for the sake of being able to make a clear juridical distinction without any loopholes child offenders can use, it might be good to prohibit slapping children altogether if such is required to give courts of law and child protection agencies the power needed to do their job in protecting abused children.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hitting children without leaving any marks is for me abusing but it is the intention that really makes it liable to punishment I think. Discipline is important but it can also without harming you child.
Communication is the most important thing between the relation with your child.
Post a Comment