< Previous | Contents | Next >

DISCIPLINING CHILDREN: RESEARCH WITH PARENTS IN SCOTLAND

E. Awareness and views of possible changes in the law

Introduction

This final substantive section of the report looks at a range of issues surrounding the law on physical chastisement. In particular, it looks at understanding of the current legal situation; at awareness and understanding of the changes proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill; and at views of the appropriateness and likely impact of those changes. The themes covered in the sub-sections are:

• perceptions and misperceptions of the current law and the proposed legislation
• attitudes towards legislation on smacking
• arguments against the proposed ban on smacking children under three
• perceptions of how a ban would affect parental behaviour
• attitudes towards other aspects of the proposed legislation

‘You cannae smack them once they turn three’: perceptions and misperceptions of the current law and the proposed legislation

At the time that the qualitative interviewing was carried out (in March and April 2002), there was a great deal of confusion about the current and proposed legislation. While many parents were aware of a controversy about the law on smacking, most were extremely vague about the details. A surprising number of those interviewed were under the impression that the law had already been changed and that it was now illegal to smack children in general or children of particular ages. The following exchanges are typical of participants’ responses on this theme.

*Interviewer: what is the current law on smacking?
*It is not under three's. You're not allowed to smack under three's. Or is it over three's?
*I don't think you're allowed to smack them at all.
*You're not allowed to touch their head. I know that. But I would never touch the head anyway.
*I think it's over three. So if they needed smacked before they were three. A smack on the hand. After three, you can speak to them and say "No you're going in your room".
Focus group, Edinburgh, Females, ABC1

*I don’t think it’s actually law yet. I think they’re trying to bring it out. I don’t know if it’s actually law already.
* I don’t think it’s actually out. And it’s all about not smacking them over the head. You mustn’t.
Peer group, Edinburgh, Females, C2DE

Understanding of the legislative position had obviously been clouded, to some extent, by media coverage of the court cases involving the school-teacher prosecuted for hitting his daughter in a dentist’s waiting room and the French tourist found guilty of assaulting his son in Edinburgh. Despite the fact that both cases involved charges of assault, they tended to be seen as examples of parents being prosecuted for ‘smacking’ and were commonly linked to discussion of the legislation.

* I saw articles in the paper about 2 months ago about this guy in Edinburgh. It was terrible. A French man on holiday in Edinburgh in some restaurant. I think it was a 4 year old and it was misbehaving terribly. So his father took him out of the restaurant onto Princes Street ... I don't think it was Princes Street ... and smacked him. And he was in jail for 2 days in Edinburgh.
* It makes you wonder about what you do.
Focus group, Inverness, Females, C2DE

Despite this final comment, perhaps the most significant thing about parents’ understandings of the legislation is that most continued to smack, despite thinking that it was now illegal (at least in certain situations). We return to this issue below.

The quantitative survey provides further evidence of the extent of confusion surrounding the existing law and of the limited awareness and understanding of the changes proposed.

When respondents were asked how much they would say they knew or understood about the current law on smacking in Scotland, four out of five parents said that they knew either ‘not very much’ (62%) or ‘nothing at all’ (18%). Just 2% said they knew ‘a great deal’ and 17% ‘quite a lot’ about the current law.

When asked which of three statements they thought best describes the current law on smacking in Scotland, 15% thought that it is illegal to smack a child of any age and 37% that it is illegal to smack a child under a particular age. In other words, half of all parents believe that smacking is currently illegal, either for younger children or children in general. Around a third (32%) thought that it is not currently illegal to smack a child of any age, while the remaining 16% said they did not know.

Figure E - 1 Which statement best describes the current law on smacking in Scotland?
Unweighted base=692

Among those who thought it is currently illegal to smack a child under a particular age, 53% thought that the age below which it was illegal was three, 13% that it was two and 3% that it was one. The remainder thought it was four or above (20%) or said they did not know (11%).

The results clearly show that understandings of the law are not directly linked to behaviour, since those who have used physical chastisement with their child in the last year are no more likely to believe that their behaviour is currently lawful.

During the course of the survey interview, it was explained to respondents that it is currently legal for parents to smack their children, providing they do not use excessive force, but that the Scottish Executive is considering making changes to the law. When asked whether they had heard anything about the proposed changes, roughly 6 in 10 parents (59%) said that they had. But of those who had, the vast majority said they knew either ‘not very much’ (75%) or ‘nothing at all’ (6%) about what is being proposed. That said, there was a clear difference in levels of understanding of the current legislation between those who were aware of the proposals and those who were not -41% of the former believing it is not currently illegal to smack a child of any age compared with 19% of the latter.

Once the current law had been explained to them, respondents were asked about their view of the proposed changes. In the focus groups, there appeared to be little support for the idea of a ban on smacking. The survey results indicate that perhaps around half of parents might, in fact, support such a move — at least in relation to very young children as the following analysis shows.

Figure E - 2 Attitude towards changes to the law on smacking
Unweighted base=692

The results suggests that just over half of parents (52%) support a ban on smacking, at least in relation to children of a particular age: 14% think it should be made illegal to smack a child of any age and a further 38% think it should be made illegal to smack a child under a certain age. Forty one percent think it should remain legal to smack a child.

There is no significant relationship between age of child and parental views on this point. Not surprisingly however, parents' own use of physical chastisement is linked to their views on legislation (see Figure E-3 below). Those who have never used any form of physical chastisement with their own child are much more likely to think that it should be made illegal to smack a child of any age (28% compared to 8% who have used physical chastisement). However, in both groups, those who do not support an outright ban are fairly evenly split between those who think smacking should be made illegal for children under a certain age and those who favour the status quo.

Figure E - 3 Attitude towards changes to the law on smacking by own use of physical chastisement
Unweighted base=692; never used — n=190; have used — n=499

The 38% of parents who thought it should be illegal to smack a child below a certain age, were then asked what they thought that age should be. Most suggested an age under 5 but there was no clear consensus about which particular age that should be: 9% of this group thought that the age should be one, 23% that it should be two and 34% that it should be three. This is illustrated in Figure E-4 below. It must be remembered that these are proportions only of the 38% of parents who think it should be illegal to smack a child below a certain age - as discussed above, a further 14% think it should be illegal to smack a child of any age while 41% think it should remain legal to smack a child.

We have estimated the proportions of all parents who would support a ban set at different ages (see Figure E-5). These calculations make two main assumptions. The first is that a respondent in favour of a ban for all ages would support a ban on smacking children under a certain age (at least in preference to the status quo). The second is that respondents who would prefer that the limit was set at an older age, would also support a ban on smacking younger children (e.g. if someone thinks that smacking should be banned for children under 4, we have assumed that they would also support a ban on smacking children under 3).

On this basis, we have calculated that the level of support for making it illegal to smack a child under one is around 52% of all parents¹⁰. We estimate that around 48% of parents would support a ban on smacking children under two, 38% would support a ban on smacking children under three, 24% would support a ban on smacking children under four and 20% a ban on smacking children under 5.

Figure E - 4 Age below which it should be illegal to smack children
Unweighted base = All those who think it should be made illegal to smack a child under a certain age (n=266)

Figure E - 5 Estimated levels of support for banning smacking at different ages (% respondents)
Unweighted base=692

Interestingly, almost a third of respondents (32%) thought it should be made illegal to smack a child above a certain age (43% thought it should not and 25% were not sure). Whether this reflects a strongly committed view, or simply a prompted response to a survey question is debatable, as there was little evidence of strong support for such legislation in the qualitative work. That said, the qualitative interviews did highlight some relevant views — for example, that smacking an older child was closer to ‘abuse’, that it would be counter-productive or ineffective, and that it might embarrass or humiliate the child.

When this sub-group of respondents were asked at what age it should become illegal to smack a child, as the following graph shows, there was little consensus — though most respondents opted for seven or above.

Figure E - 6 Age above which it should be illegal to smack children
Unweighted base = All those who think it should be made illegal to smack a child above a certain age (n=216)

Arguments against the proposed ban on smacking children under three

The research suggests, then, that at least half of Scottish parents are not in favour of banning smacking for children under the age of three. What arguments were expressed in the qualitative work in support of this position?

First, there was a widespread concern that the legislation would potentially criminalise ‘ordinary’, ‘caring’ parents who are already doing their best in often difficult circumstances. Secondly and relatedly, it was argued that it would be better to put the resources into positive provision for children and families and, in doing so, reduce the stresses that often lead to problems.

*I think they would have been better putting their money in so that there is somewhere for the children instead of telling people what most of them know anyway
[…]
*What would the punishment be, it would be a charge and it is more stress where if they put the money they are going to use into other things that would help the parents
Focus group, Glasgow, Males, C2DE

* I think, if they’re going to spend money on bringing in laws or ploughing money into that, plough it into giving support to families and make sure that maybe. Maybe there is a bit more nursery, so mum can get 2 and a half hours peace and, maybe when they come out, she’ll maybe have had a coffee and 2 hours of peace. She’ll maybe not lose the plot. She’ll maybe not. That’s not going to work for everybody but, if they’re going to spend money and time, plough it into a good base for families and for mums and maybe then we can move on, but to hold this flag and wave it about and say, we will not have children smacked. Feed them. Make sure mum is happy. Make sure their heating is on and they’re fed and then maybe you can move on from there. That’s what I think.
Peer group, Dundee, Females, ABC1

A third line of argument was that the legislation was focusing on ‘the wrong people’ — in other words, that the Executive should be finding ways of identifying and dealing with cases of serious child abuse, rather than diverting resources into the policing of smacking.

*It's annoying because what about these wee children that are starved to death with cigarette burns all over them.
*Yes. And you think ... get your act together. Look at the real world and what's happening.
*Do you think it makes a difference? Nobody's going to make a citizen's
arrest in Safeway's. Are they? Or can you? Are you allowed to?
Peer group, Edinburgh, Females, ABC1

In general, opposition to the idea of the ban appears to be based less on a principled defence of smacking than on a commitment to the idea that parents should be largely free to decide how to bring up their own children. While it was accepted that there should be limits to that freedom, and there was concern to prevent ‘real abuse’, most parents simply could not make a connection between the use of a ‘wee smack’ and a need for legislation.

*I would hate them to tell me how to bring up my kids and tell me what I can and can’t do. I know for a fact that I do not hurt them. if I want to give them a wee smack it should be up to me and I know how far I can go. That would be it a smack, but they should not say I can’t do it. But at the same time I can see it both ways. I can, because I think the kids can’t face up to an adult, but I would not hurt my kids, but there are parents who would.
Paired depth (couple), Edinburgh, ABC1

*If they say that that's the law, you're not allowed to smack your kids. What you do inside your house ... as long as you're not physically or mentally torturing them. I don't think they can tell you what to do.
*Interviewer: They can't tell you or they shouldn't tell you?
*Cruelty to children. But I don't think they can tell you not to give them a smack on the hand.
Peer group, Edinburgh, Females, ABC1

* I think the law should be based on common sense. Common sense tells you that if a kid is being abused - you know the difference between a smack and abuse. There's loads of kids who are being abused and nobody knows because it's done behind closed doors. They should spend more time with that sort of thing than innocent folk who either get angry and they might be wrong, who will smack their kids but it has no lasting affect.
[...]
* Do you not think the law is hitting the wrong folk anyway. They're not putting it in for decent, upstanding folk who are considering the law because you get the folk who beat their kids up, they don't care what the law says because they're breaking it anyway.
Peer group, Borders, Mixed, C2DE

The proposed legislation was also criticised on other grounds — for example, for what was perceived as the arbitrary character of the age cut-off, and on the basis that it would be unworkable, that it would place impossible demands on the police and social work departments, and that it would have no impact on those people who genuinely pose a risk to their own children.

* I don't know if it can be straight across the board like that. And how do you know? You can't come into people's houses checking. If you're smacking, they're not going to be any the wiser to be honest. How do you know? As soon as they turn three, now it's time to start smacking them? Because some kids are doing a lot more early on. I mean it's like walking. Some start at 9 months. Some start at 18 months.
[…]
* Abuse is happening behind closed doors. And it's not even getting picked up, is it? For someone to be fined or arrested for smacking a child in public, when they've done something that is life-threatening. How can that be justified?
Peer group, Edinburgh, Females, C2DE

* I don't think the police could cope with that. You imagine that lassie in the supermarket there, they might have had about 20 phone calls about that. The police have got to go there to deal with someone smacking their kid when somebody else is shoplifting or breaking into a house and assaulting old folk.
Peer group, Borders, Mixed, C2DE

*If they were going to do anything. If the Social Work Department has to investigate every parent that smacks a child, nobody would get anything done, and none of the children that needed help would get it, would they? I mean, you can’t. I don’t think you can enforce that. It’s a waste of the Scottish Executive time.
Peer group, Dundee, Females, ABC1

*I work in the Co-op. And kids are running about all the time. And you hear them giving them ... "wait till you get home boy" or whatever and then they take the punishment at home. Whatever their punishment may be. But they’re not doing it in public. So they’re just taking it away from one place and putting it in another
Focus group, Highlands, Males, C2DE

Perceptions of how a ban would affect parental behaviour

We have already seen that a majority of those interviewed indicated that they smack their children at least occasionally and also that many parents believed that smacking was already illegal, at least for children of certain ages. This suggests that, in the short-term at least, one should not expect to see a direct link between legislation and behavioural change.

When asked explicitly whether the introduction of legislation would affect the way they dealt with their children, 46% indicated that they wouldn’t smack a child under 3 in any event, 8% said that it would stop them smacking and 5% said they would smack less. Of the remainder, 27% said it make no difference to their behaviour and 14% indicated that a ban would stop them smacking in a public place.

Table E - 1 Anticipated impact of a ban on parental behaviour

Unweighted base=692

Survey participants were also asked whether they would be likely to intervene if smacking were made illegal for children under two and they saw a mother in a supermarket giving three ‘quite hard smacks’ to a child of around 18 months. A third (34%) said that they would intervene, but the vast majority of these (84%) said that they would say something to the mother, rather than report her to the police or other authorities. Interestingly, about as many people (6%) indicated that they would report the incident to supermarket staff as to the police (7%) — suggesting that such legislation might have unexpected consequences for a range of organisations.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, willingness to intervene in such a situation is strongly correlated with attitudes towards and own use of physical chastisement.

Attitudes towards other aspects of the legislation

There was far greater support for the other aspects of the legislation — i.e. the proposal to make it unlawful to shake, strike around the head or strike with an implement a child of any age. As the following graph indicates, each of these attracted the support of around 4 out of 5 parents interviewed. Interestingly, there was not the same pattern by social class — indeed, there was slightly higher agreement with the proposals from those in social groups C2DE than ABC1.

Figure E - 7 Agreement with other aspects of the legislation by social class (%)
Unweighted base=692; ABC1 — n=372; C2DE — n=320

Even among parents who use currently use some form of physical chastisement with their own children, around three-quarters were in support of each of these proposals.

In only a handful of the qualitative interviews was any opposition to these proposals voiced, usually framed around problems of definition (e.g. what constitutes shaking?) or consistency (is the use of a slipper really worse than the use of a hand?). There is little doubt that these behaviours chime much more closely with most parents’ views of what constitutes abuse and, as such, are much less controversial as the subject of legislation and policing.

Key points

• There is widespread confusion about the current legislative situation, with half of all parents believing that smacking is currently illegal, either for all children or for children of a particular age. Less than a third thought that it is not currently illegal to smack a child of any age.
• Although there was relatively widespread awareness that the Executive is considering changes to the law (six in ten parents saying they had heard something about it), the vast majority of parents claimed little knowledge of the detail.
• We estimate that around 38% of parents in Scotland are currently in favour of banning smacking for the under threes, 48% appear likely to support a ban on smacking of children aged under two. Forty-one per cent think it should remain legal to smack a child.
• The main arguments advanced against the proposed ban are: that it would criminalise ‘ordinary’ parents who are already doing their best in difficult circumstances; that it would be better to put the resources into provision for children and families to reduce the stress that often creates problems; that the Executive should be finding ways of identifying and tackling ‘real’ child abuse rather than diverting resources into the policing of smacking; and that the legislation would be unworkable or impractical.
• Opposition to the proposed legislation appears to be underpinned by a reluctance to view smacking as potentially abusive and by a commitment to the idea that parents should be largely free to decide how to bring up their own children.
• Of those who currently smack under 3s, there was little evidence that parents would greatly modify their behaviour in response to a ban. Although some respondents did indicate that it might make them less likely to smack in a public place, as we have already seen, most physical chastisement takes place within the home.
• There was far greater support for other aspects of the legislation, since these behaviours chime much more closely with most parents’ views of what constitutes abuse and, as such, are much less controversial as the subject of legislation and policing.

< Previous | Contents | Next >