Even though it would appear that many in today's society agree that smacking doesn't teach children lessons, it is still part of modern life...why?

In this essay I will show that smacking is a major problem, how people have treated it throughout the years and why it has taken the government until now to begin dealing with the problem.

As children our elders often tell us that we have rights; that we should not always be told what to do by others; that we should not be afraid to show our personalities; but expressing ourselves in our own way is often one of the reasons why children get smacked.
When I was smacked as a child, my mother would always feel as upset and guilty as I was feeling. As my parents have always been strongly against smacking, I was smacked only two or three times altogether, however this shows that no matter how we feel on the subject we are all capable of losing our temper and lashing out physically, mentally or verbally.

In the past attitudes have been very different and parent's would intentionally hit a child, to teach it a lesson, so that pain would remind them not to misbehave. This was not recognised as a problem and as children were considered their parents "property" everyone turned a blind eye, as it was the child's punishment. Throughout the years this subject has been described to us by the writers of the day, such as in Dickens's, Oliver Twist, showing the treatment of children, not only by their parents but by any adult who was displeased or angry at the child. Smacking was also a problem during the 1930's and 1940's as children were evacuated and were smacked by the people who had taken them in. This was done without the parents consent. These attitudes towards the discipline of children continued throughout the century. But by the 1960's great changes were afoot.

"The Women's Movement" in the early 1900's, otherwise known as the fight for women's rights and votes, resulted in new laws being made to prevent such discrimination against women. The women's movement also came up in the 1960's when women once again took the stand for equality. Racial equality was also touched upon at this time by figures such as Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela who were demanding for the same rights. This type of discrimination still occurring, not to adults, but to children, we are told we have rights, but the people we trust most are breaking these, our parents. It has taken until 2000, nearly one hundred year after the Women's Movement began, for the Government to begin to solve the problem of violence towards children. However when a recent cases of child abuse, where a father who forced his 13-year-old stepson to stand naked in the street, with the sign "I am lazy and I wet my bed" round his neck, went to court, the father escaped prison, as the court accepted that he was an "old fashioned disciplinarian" and not a bully. Unfortunately cases of smacking and bullying children such as this are often thrown out of court, as the parents are considered to be "old fashioned", which I do not think is a reasonable excuse for the injury to the child's mental or physical state.

There are two sides to the argument, however. The part of the public who are not against smacking children believe that to tell a child that they're unloved, or that their parents will stop loving them if they continue to behaved badly, is a much harsher and more unkind way to obtain good behaviour, than a quick smack. They feel "It never hurt them as a child", that it's better than "Mummy and Daddy don't love you anymore" and that it's "their choice and that they never wanted or intended to hurt the child". These comments show that the parents did not want to hurt, but to discipline and that they believed smacking was the least traumatising way. People, who are for smacking, may say that aggressive older children are not so as a result of being smacked, but just of the path they have chosen in later life.

The people who are against smacking such as EPOCH (End Physical Punishment Of Children) believe that "because punishment itself is ineffective in changing the child's behaviour, the punishment inevitably escalates, in some cases to the level of child abuse". Other people believe that "violence breeds violence", that inflicting pain does not change the child's perception of their behaviour and that smacking and beating are the same. People against smacking say that it would be seen as assault if practised on an adult and should be treated similarly in the case of a child.

My personal view is that smacking doesn't help to discipline a child and I'm shocked every time I see a parent strike their child in the street for being too slow, for crying or being badly behaved. I feel that other methods of discipline are far more effective and acceptable.