Consultation on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill
|
Tystiolaeth i’r Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg ar gyfer craffu Cyfnod 1 Bil Plant (Diddymu Amddiffyniad Cosb Resymol) (Cymru) |
Evidence submitted to the Children, Young People and Education Committee for Stage 1 scrutiny of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill |
|
CADRP-520 |
CADRP-520 |
About you
Name: Jonathan Evans
Role: Professor of Youth Justice Policy and Practice
— Yes
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
1. The principle of equality before the law means extending to children the statutory protection already enjoyed by adults.
2. This is a very practical expression of children’s human rights. Important though parents should ideally be in the lives of their children, the proposed statute sends out a clear message that children are not the property of adults. They are citizens in their own right. As citizens, under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, they have the right to be raised without fear of violence.
3. Unlike successive UK governments, we should not ignore the clear advice given to us on this subject by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.
4. On the basis of evidence from empirical research (references can be supplied should this be required), we know that hitting children can affect young people’s development adversely. The research evidence suggests that children subject to physical punishment are more likely to experience a wide range of short and long-term negative effects, including: aggression; behaviour that is likely to lead to involvement in the criminal justice system; poorer mental health; and, in adulthood, a greater propensity to abuse their own children or spouses.
5. Passing a statute that removes the defence for physical punishment sends an unambiguous public health message that any form of violence is damaging to health and well-being. It is also risks normalising the use of physical force. We know from our experience in other policy domains that passing laws can have a positive impact on changing attitudes and behaviour. We have seen this in relation to anti-smoking legislation, for example. This message also makes the job of child protection social workers much more straightforward, in that discussions about so-called ‘safe’ levels of smacking are curtailed, allowing more time for promoting positive forms of discipline.
6. It should be recognised that in some cases, particularly where stressed parents are struggling in difficult circumstances, there is a risk that low-level smacking can escalate into more severe and life-threatening levels of physical abuse. A clear line being drawn on this issue actually helps parents to seek other ways of disciplining their children and can prompt that minority of parents who really do need help, to ask for advice, guidance and support.
7. There is an understandable concern that we may criminalise some essentially decent, but hard pressed parents who may – because of exhaustion, stress and exasperation - lose patience and self-control, and use corporal punishment as a last, desperate resort. It is worth recalling here that in those countries where physical punishment is illegal, the prisons are not bulging with parents convicted of ‘light smacking’. Moreover, we really do not have to criminalise to help, guide and support parents. Youth Justice is an area that has pioneered ways in which young people’s behaviour can be changed and their welfare needs met outside of the formal criminal justice system. We need to learn lessons on successful diversion schemes from this area of policy and practice, and apply them to parenting. We must therefore embrace the recommendation in the UN Committee’s Report that talks of providing ‘parental education and professional training in positive child-rearing’. We can and must offer non-criminalising, non-stigmatising support and guidance to such parents outside of the criminal justice system.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Yes.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
No.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
-
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Provided training and guidance is given to key professionals, I do not envisage unintended consequences.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
No.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
No.