End corporal punishment for the sake of our children
Physical punishment has been banned in schools and prisons, so why do we allow it at home?
Children, said Plutarch, need encouragement and reason, not "blows or ill-treatment".
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which defines corporal punishment as "any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however slight", calls physical punishment "invariably degrading".
Although the use of force against someone without their consent is an offence, the physical punishment of a child is, paradoxically, lawful, and the disparity is unjustifiable. Children are not simply their parents' chattels, to be beaten at whim, and, like adults, they have basic rights.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child applies to Hong Kong, and Article 19 requires state parties to "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse".
By March, 37 states had banned corporal punishment, including Austria, Israel, Kenya, New Zealand and, most recently, Malta.
At common law, however, the "reasonable chastisement" of a child is permissible. Whilst reasonableness is hard to define, the parent usually gets the benefit of any doubt. A spanking without obvious hurt is not, generally, prosecutable, mental anguish notwithstanding, but, if injury results, such as bruises or scratches, a reasonable chastisement defence will likely fail.