“Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

 Thou shall beat him with the rod and shall deliver his soul from hell” 

                                             …The Bible (Prov. 23:13-14)

 Both the Islamic and Christian religions are in support of training up a child through child discipline (corporal punishment) when necessary, that is by flogging or smacking the child in order to correct him or her. Infact, some children are so stubborn that the only kind of discipline they can understand is smacking or flogging. Concerning such children, it is said;

“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (prov.22:15)

 The only form of discipline children fear so much is smacking or flogging and as such some parents see it as the best way of training up a child to follow the right path.

However, some countries have banned corporal punishment as they see it as degrading and disrespecting the dignity of human personality, since a child is a human being, his/her human dignity must be respected.

This argument is based on Article xxxvii of the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC), which provides:

“No child shall be subjects to torture, cruel, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

However, adopting this stance has been most difficult for some other countries, especially those on the African continent, since child discipline does not only have religious backing, but it has for ages been part of their culture.

I want to pitch my tent with those countries that are in support of application of proportionate corporal punishment in training up children, not only because it has religions and cultural backing, but also because it seems not to have any legal objection or protest whatsoever, and it aids a better upbringing of children.

“A child needs both to be hugged and unhugged.

The hug lets her know she is valuable. The unhug

lets her know that she is viable. If you’re always

 shoving your children away, they will cling to

 you for love. If you’re always holding them closer,

 they will cling to you for fear”.

_____ Polly Berrien Berends

Article xxvii of the CRC did not provide against child discipline but the concern of that provision is on subjecting the child to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article xvi of African Union (AU) charter similarly provides.

“States parties to the present charter shall take specific legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and especially physical or mental injury or abuse…”

Neither the CRC nor the AU charter is against child discipline as a way of training a child; what both are against is turning such discipline into torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The word “torture” by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Eleventh edition) means, “the action or practice of inflicting severe pain as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion” Thus, once child discipline does not involve torture (inflicting severe pain), cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, it is obvious that such treatment will not attract legal protest, either by the CRC, the AU Charter or the Nigerian Child Rights Act (CRA). The truth is that it is sometimes necessary that a child should be given some form of discipline for proper upbringing. Charles Pierre Peguy, a French writer and a poet once said: “Any father whose son raises a hand against him is guilty: of having produced a son who raised his hand against him.” Most children will not behave responsibly unless they are disciplined. In such cases, if discipline is the only way to make them grow up as responsible adults, then it would be necessary, once it does not turn to child torture. Child torture, inhuman and degrading treatment is what the law frowns at. Even the scripture quoted earlier is against torturing a child in the name of discipline or subjecting a child to any punishment that is degrading to his/her human dignity. Note the passage once again.

“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him”

It didn’t say the rod of oppression, the rod of torture or the rod of cruelty” but the rod of correction. In other words, it is saying that children are bound to misbehave and act foolishly most of the time, and a parent or any one standing in loco parentis to the child can smack or flog them (lightly, not severely), so that they might learn that such behaviour is not approved, and the parent should ensure that the rod applied is meant to correct the child’s foolishness, and not to cause them bodily harm or injury. And the way the discipline is administered should not degrade, or disrespect the human dignity of the child. A child is a human being; the dignity of his human person must be respected at all times.

Thus, in administering discipline, the parents, legal guardians of the child, teachers (who also stand in locus parentis to the child) must ensure the child is able or capable of understanding the reason for the discipline. If the child cannot understand the reason for the punishment because of their age, such discipline must not be administered on the child. The purpose of discipline is to correct, therefore, if a child is not capable of knowing that they are being corrected and why,the discipline is unnecessary and torturous.

In administering discipline to a child, parents or legal guardian must be careful concerning the kind of objects employed in hitting or smacking a child. The kind of object used goes a long way to determine whether the discipline amounts to torture and degrading treatment. Please note that the Hebrew word “sherbet” is what was translated as “rod” in the earlier quotation from the scripture, and the word “sherbet” means “a stick” and not “rod” as we know it. The need to explain this arises from the fact that many parents have misunderstood this and used rods (metal objects) on their children in the name of carrying out a religious injunction. Some parents or legal guardians would apply anything on a child, be it a plank, iron, bunch of broom, hammer, bottle, the list is endless. Such objects no doubt will end up causing bodily or mental harm or injury to the child. Both religion and law protects the child from such child abuse, and any parents, guardian or teacher who violates this provision will consequently face both the wrath of God and that of the law.

It is indeed not easy to restrain some parents from going to the extreme once they begin administering discipline on a child. Administrative, social and educational measures have not been so much successful in this regard. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some countries decided to take legislative measures to completely out- law the administration of corporal punishment within their jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions permit corporal punishment by parents at home, but prohibit teachers by banning it in schools. This can be attributable to two reasons. First it will be difficult to legislate against the administration of corporal punishment at home considering the cultural and religious support it enjoys. Second, administration of corporal punishment by parents to their children at home is likely to be done considerately, with love and care and with the aim of correcting the child and not to torture (or pursue a vendetta) since the child belongs to them, and no reasonable parents would want to deform or harm their own child [except the child is a domestic servant from another parent]. But, it appears that some teachers are guilty of carelessness in administering discipline to children in schools especially as they are not their own children. The Nigerian case of  Ekeogu v. Aliri  where a teacher caused permanent injury to the eye of a school child in the process of administering corporal punishment; and the English case of  R v. Hopley, where a school master took a boy of thirteen from his bed at night and beat him with a stick, and also a skipping rope, for two hours and a half, at the end of which time the boy died, can justify banning the application of corporal punishment in schools.

The bottom line is that parents have right to administer reasonable discipline to their children in the process of bringing them up if that will help make them better and responsible adults. Discipline administered to a child with love, considering the age of the child and his capacity to understand the purpose of the discipline, is not against the provision of the CRC, the AU charter, or the Nigerian Child Rights Act (CRA). Both the CRC and the CRA provide that all action taken on the child must be done with the best interest of the child as the major concern. It is not in the best interest of the child to fold your hands and watch the child grow up foolishly; rather it will be to his best interest if administration of corporal punishment will help the child follow the right path. “Be strict and don’t let your children get away with bad behaviour”, says Alex A. Lluch.

However, corporal punishment is just one-way of disciplining a child. There are several other ways a child can be disciplined without resorting to the use of any object on the child. A child can be asked to kneel down for some time, denied certain benefits or refused being granted a request etc, until he learns to behave properly. Parents don’t need to administer corporal punishment at any slightest misbehaviour of a child. It should only be used as a last resort. Sometime, a mere threat of flogging or smacking a child will deter him from misbehaving.

However, parents should be able to know what manner of discipline is most appropriate and which will be more effective in training up their children. In every action, remember, the best interest of the child should be a major concern.      (To read more, request for the book “IN PURSUIT OF TRUE SUCCESS” from CRACO).

In the light of this Article, should Corporal Punishment in Schools be banned? What do you think?