If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking is Violence in the Netherlands now.
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_...story_id=16923
http://tinyurl.com/6uvlb " Parents banned from smacking children 14 February 2005 AMSTERDAM - In a proposal that will ban the giving of disciplinary smacks, the Dutch Cabinet has decided to outlaw all forms of violence against children to combat child abuse. Cabinet ministers decided on Friday that parents will in future be explicitly obligated by law to care for their children and to raise them without emotional or physical violence. .....more at the available links..... http://tinyurl.com/6uvlb [[[ Some interesting thinking in this law and it's creation ]]] Breaches of regulations can lead to supervision from welfare authorities or the loss of custody. In more serious cases, culprits can be jailed at the order of a court. In several other European countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Austria - where all forms of violence against children is a criminal offence - evidence is starting to be gathered indicating that the law leads to a reduction in the number of child abuse cases. [Copyright Expatica News 2005] http://tinyurl.com/6uvlb Notice the outcomes.....indications that the law leads to reduction in the number of child abuse cases. Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Anti-spanking zealotS always claimed that banning spanking will reduce child abuse. But where is the evidence? Doan Begin include Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little sound evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggression. This paper explores whether the 1979 Swedish law against all corporal punishment has reduced their child abuse. Sweden's 1979 law was welcomed by many as a much needed policy toward reducing physical child abuse. Surprisingly, this search located only five published studies with any relevant data. The best study found that the rate of child abuse was 49% higher in Sweden than in the United States, comparing a 1980 Swedish national survey with the average rates from two national surveys in the United States in 1975 and 1985. By comparison, a retrospective survey of university students in 1981 found that the Swedish child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and the 1970s, prior to the anti-spanking law. More recent Swedish data indicate a 489% increase in one child abuse statistic from 1981 through 1994, as well as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors. The article discusses possible reasons for this apparent increase in child abuse and calls for better evaluations of innovative policies intended to reduce societal abuse and violence. Poster presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, August 18, 1996. Where is Evidence That Non-Abusive Corporal Punishment Increases Aggression? Two recent reviews of the literature on parental corporal punishment have found few methodologically sound studies. Further, hardly any of the soundest studies found detrimental child outcomes associated with corporal punishment. This paper explores whether there is evidence that the outlawing of corporal punishment by parents in Sweden and other countries has had any discernible effect, particularly on child abuse and, to a lesser degree, on child outcomes such as aggression. Lyons, Anderson, and Larson (1993) attempted to review all journal articles on corporal punishment by parents from 1984 through 1993. Only 24 of the 132 articles (17%) included any empirical data on corporal punishment. Less than half of those (11) investigated corporal punishment as a possible cause of some other variable. Most (83%) of the studies were cross-sectional, and only one made any attempt to exclude child abuse from the measure of corporal punishment. They concluded that there was empirical evidence supporting one of three hypotheses: Several studies found that parents were more likely to use corporal punishment themselves if their parents had used it. There was no sound evidence that corporal punishment was ineffective, nor that it was associated with child aggression. Larzelere (in press) built on their review by extending the search of peer- reviewed articles to the period 1974 to 1995 plus older articles that met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were designed to exclude studies that were cross-sectional or whose measures emphasized the severity of usage of corporal punishment. Only 18 studies were found that both met the two inclusion criteria and limited the sample to children under 13 years of age. The 8 strongest studies found beneficial outcomes of corporal punishment, usually in 2- to 6-year-olds. The 10 other studies were prospective (6) or retrospective (4). Three of them found detrimental outcomes, but only 1 of those 3 made any attempt to exclude abuse from its measure of corporal punishment. Further, none of the 10 studies controlled for the initial level of child misbehavior. This seems to be an important methodological problem, since the frequency of every type of discipline response tends to be positively associated with child misbehavior, whether the associations are cross-sectional or longitudinal (Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996; Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, in press). Finally, no alternative discipline response in any of the 18 studies was associated with more beneficial child outcomes than was corporal punishment, whereas 7 alternatives were associated with more detrimental child outcomes, mostly in 2- to 6-year-olds. These reviews suggest that the empirical linkage between nonabusive corporal punishment and aggression comes only from cross-sectional studies, studies of teenagers, studies measuring particularly severe forms of corporal punishment, and, perhaps, studies of punitiveness. This led us to ask how well current societal experiments are working in countries that have outlawed all forms of parental use of corporal punishment. In 1979, Sweden passed a law prohibiting all corporal punishment by parents. This was hailed as a crucial step in the effort to reduce child abuse (Deley, 1988; Feshbach, 1980; Ziegert, 1983). Several countries have passed similar laws since then (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Austria, and Cyprus), and organizations have formed to advocate against parental corporal punishment throughout the world (e.g., End Physical Punishment of Children [EPOCH]: Radda Barnen, no date). This movement represents one of the most sweeping changes ever advocated by social scientists. In the United States, for example, about 90% of parents have spanked their 3-year-old children in the past year (Straus, 1983; Wauchope & Straus, 1990). Some social scientific research has been used to support the anti-spanking position (e.g., Hyman, 1995; Straus, 1994), but the reviews summarized above have found such support coming primarily from methodologically poor studies. Given the inconclusiveness of relevant research and the importance of the issue, it is desirable to know whether child abuse has decreased in Sweden following their 1979 anti-spanking law. Accordingly, this article asks two inter-related questions: (1) To what extent have social scientists evaluated the effect of the 1979 anti-spanking law in Sweden, and (2) what do those evaluations indicate about the effects of the anti-spanking law in reducing child abuse? We also report one finding about Swedish trends in assaults by minors discovered during our study. Literature Search for Evaluations Two procedures were used to find evaluations of the effects of Sweden's anti- spanking law. First, PsycLit was searched from 1974 through June of 1995 for all publications that included "Sweden" or "Swedish" and either "punishment" or "spanking" in their abstracts. Second, Social Sciences Citation Index was used to identify all articles citing Gelles and Edfeldt (1986) through April 1995, because their study reported a well-done survey of Swedish child abuse rates one year after the anti-spanking law was passed. Empirical Evaluations of Sweden's Anti-Spanking Law Five published studies and one unpublished paper were found that included any empirical information relevant for evaluating the 1979 anti-spanking law. Ziegert (1983) published a conceptual, preliminary article on why the law should be effective. His only empirical data was from a Swedish opinion poll showing that the percentage of respondents considering corporal punishment to be necessary had dropped from 53% in 1965 to 35% in 1971 to 26% in 1979 and 1981. In an article comparing Swedish and American use of corporal punishment, Solheim (1982) reported that 26% of Swedish respondents considered corporal punishment necessary in 1978. Like Ziegert (1983), Solheim's (1982) article was mostly nonempirical, discussing such issues as court decisions about corporal punishment in schools, the 1979 law, and expert opinions. Together these two articles show that the decline in support for the necessity of parental corporal punishment in Sweden preceded the 1979 law, and it did not decrease thereafter, at least through 1981. A third article reported the rate of child homicides in various European countries, comparing 1973/1974 with approximately 1987/1988 (Pritchard, 1992). Note that this compared statistics before and after the 1979 law. The Swedish child homicide rate was the sixth lowest of the 17 countries at both time periods. However, it nearly doubled from 1973/1974 to 1986/1987. Sweden's 93% increase in its child homicide rate was the fifth largest percentage increase among the 17 countries. It should also be noted that the rate of accidental baby deaths in Sweden was the lowest of the 17 countries at both time periods. Unlike the child homicide rate, it decreased by 67% between the two time periods, although 10 of the other 16 countries decreased their accidental baby death rates by an even larger percentage. A fourth article compared child abuse rates among university students at one Swedish university compared to one American university as reported in a 1981 survey (Deley, 1988). Because these were retrospective reports, they were child abuse rates during the 1960s and the 1970s as these students were growing up, a time period preceding the 1979 law. The critical question asked whether a spanking had ever left physical marks that lasted for more than 10 minutes. Two percent of the Sweden students reported receiving such physical marks from a spanking, compared to 9.5% of the American students. Although this is far from a representative sample, this suggests that the child abuse rate in Sweden was only 21% of the American child abuse rate in the 1960s and 1970s (i.e., 2.0 divided by 9.5 = .21). The fifth and best study used telephone surveys of a nationally representative sample of Swedish parents to measure the rates of spanking and of child abuse in 1980 (Gelles & Edfeldt, 1986). It used the Conflict Tactics Scale, which was also used to measure the prevalence of spanking and child abuse in two National Family Violence Surveys in the USA (Straus & Gelles, 1986; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Gelles and Edfeldt (1986) compared their 1980 Swedish survey only with the 1975 National Family Violence Survey. They concluded that a smaller percentage of parents were spanking their children in Sweden than in the United States, but that there were no significant differences in child abuse rates. It would have been more appropriate, however, to compare their 1980 Swedish survey with the 1985 National Family Violence Survey in the USA (Straus & Gelles, 1986), which reported a 47% lower rate of child abuse in the United States than in 1975. For one thing, the 1980 Swedish survey was closer to the 1985 USA survey in its method, because both used telephone interviews. In contrast, the 1975 USA survey used face-to-face interviews. Table 1 gives the percentage of Swedish and United States parents reporting the use of various forms of physical aggression in both national surveys in the United States and the national survey in Sweden. In contrast to Gelles & Edfeldt (1986), we report whether the Swedish rate was significantly different from the mean USA rate from both the 1975 and the 1985 surveys. This approach represents a compromise on the issue of which USA survey is the most appropriate comparison, and it assumes that the 1980 rates in the USA might have been halfway between the 1975 and the 1985 rates. Table 1 Prevalence Rates of Various Forms of Physical Child Abuse in the United States and Sweden __________________________________________________ ____________________ United States Sweden Type of Violence 1975 1985 1980 1. Threw things at 5.4% 2.7% 3.6% 2. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved 40.5 30.7 49.4*** 3. Hit (spanked or slapped) 58.2 54.9 27.5*** 4. Kicked, bit, or hit with fist 3.2 1.3 2.2 5. Hit with an object (*1) 13.4 9.7 2.4*** 6. Beat up 1.3 .6 3.0*** 7. Threatened with a weapon .1 .2 .4 8. Used a weapon .1 .2 .4 Very Severe Violence (4, 6-8) 3.6 1.9 4.0* __________________________________________________ ______________________ 1 In the United States this item referred to attempted or completed hits. In Sweden, the item referred only to completed hits. The 1975 and 1980 surveys are taken from Gelles & Edfeldt (1986) and the 1985 survey from Straus & Gelles (1986). *p .05, 2-tailed t-test of proportions, comparing the combined USA samples with the Swedish sample. ***p .001, same test. As can be seen, significantly fewer Swedish parents spanked or hit their child with an object, compared to USA parents. Nonetheless, 27% of Swedish parents reported spanking or slapping their child in the past year, reflecting imperfect compliance with the law. In contrast, most of the more serious types of physical aggression occurred more often in Sweden one year after passing the anti-spanking law than they did in the United States. The rate of beating a child up was three times as high in Sweden as in the United States, the rate of using a weapon was twice as high, and the overall rate of Very Severe Violence was 49% higher in Sweden than the United States average from the 1975 and 1985 surveys. Except for weapon usage, all of these differences were significantly different using a test of differences between proportions (Downie & Heath, 1974, chap. 13), p .05. In addition, the rate of pushing, grabbing, or shoving was 39% higher in Sweden than the average rate in the United States, p .001. Thus, the rate of spanking was significantly lower in Sweden than in the United States, but the rate of other forms of physical aggression, including child abuse, was significantly higher in Sweden than in the United States. Because there were so few published studies with relevant empirical data, we also included an unpublished field study by Haeuser (1988) and sought additional data from Swedish sources. As co-founder of EPOCH-USA, an organization advocating the banning of all corporal punishment in the United States, Haeuser (1988) explicitly wanted to "promote positive visibility of this Swedish law in the U.S. and garner U.S. support for the possibility of promoting U.S. parenting norms which avoid physical punishment" (p. 2). Her paper was based on her 1981 and 1988 field visits to Sweden, using extensive interviews of 7 parents and 60 personnel in government, health and human services, and schools. In the summary, she concluded, "Most, if not all, believe the law has not affected the incidence of child abuse" (p. iii). Specifically, she reported that concerns about sexual abuse and youth gang violence had superseded concerns about physical child abuse by 1988. She also reported that she observed toddlers and young children often hitting their parents in her 1988 visit. According to her, "In 1981 both parents and professionals agreed that parents had not . . . found constructive alternatives to physical punishment [within the two years since the law was passed]. For most parents the alternative was yelling and screaming at their children, and some believed this was equally, perhaps more, destructive" (p. 22). Haeuser went on to report that most Swedish parents had developed firmer discipline techniques by 1988. Haeuser (1988) concluded that the child abuse rate was lower in Sweden than in the USA based on Swedish police statistics of 6.5 cases of physical child abuse per 1000 children in 1986. Haeuser compared this to a "U. S. rate of 9.2 to 10.7" per 1000 (Haeuser, 1988, p. 34), but acknowledged, "Since the Swedish police data omits child abuse cases known to social services but not warranting police intervention, the actual Swedish incidence rate is probably higher" (p. 34). However, the American survey that she cited (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect [NCCAN], 1988) indicated that the basis of the rate of 9.2 or 10.7 per 1000 differed from the Swedish police statistic in two ways. First, the USA rate included sexual and emotional abuse as well as physical abuse. Second, the USA rate included not only cases known to police, but also cases known to at least one professional across a wide range of occupations, including those in child protection services, public health, education (schools, daycare centers), hospitals, mental health, and social services. If limited to only physical abuse, the USA rate was only 4.9 or 5.7 known to at least one of these professionals, depending upon the definition of physical child abuse. If limited to all three kinds of abuse known specifically to police or sheriffs, the USA rate was only 2.2 per 1000 (NCCAN, 1988). The most relevant statistics we have obtained from Sweden are police-record trends in physical abuse of children under 7 years of age (Wittrock, 1992, 1995). Those records showed a 489% increase in the child abuse rate from 1981 to 1994 (see Figure 1). The same police records also indicated a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors (under 15 in Sweden) from 1981 to 1994 (see Figure 2). Discussion and Conclusions Although the Swedish anti-spanking law was intended to reduce child abuse, the best empirical study since then indicated that the rate of child abuse in Sweden was 49% higher than in the United States one year after the anti- spanking law was passed. Does this mean that the anti-spanking law increased the rate of physical child abuse in Sweden? Deley's (1988) retrospective data indicates that the Swedish physical child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and 1970s. This suggests that the anti-spanking law not only failed to achieve its goal of reducing child abuse, but that the child abuse rate increased from 21% to 149% of the equivalent USA rate, a seven-fold increase relative to the decreasing rate in the United States. We doubt that the increase was actually that substantial, because Deley used a retrospective measure with a small unrepresentative sample. Nonetheless, the available evidence suggests that a sizeable increase in the Swedish child abuse rate occurred around the time of the 1979 anti-spanking law. The other studies indicate no changes in attitudes about corporal punishment nor in child homicides due to the 1979 law. Was the apparent increase in the Swedish child abuse rate only a temporary increase following their anti-spanking law? More recent data on Swedish child abuse rates would help answer that question. One piece of subsequent data was the 6.5 cases of physical child abuse per 1,000 children in official 1986 Swedish police statistics, which was substantially higher than the 2.2 per 1,000 known to police or sheriffs in the USA. The other available evidence is the sharp increase in physical child abuse in Swedish police records from 1981 through 1994, along with a similar sharp increase in certain assaults by minors. Why might Sweden experience an increasing child abuse rate and an increase in assaults by minors after outlawing corporal punishment? Haeuser's (1988) description of some parental frustration and yelling in 1981 might indicate an increased risk of escalation to abuse at that time. This is reminiscent of Baumrind's (1973) observation of permissive parents. Compared to authoritative and authoritarian parents, permissive parents were the most likely to report "explosive attacks of rage in which they inflicted more pain or injury upon the child than they had intended. . . . Permissive parents apparently became violent because they felt that they could neither control the child's behavior nor tolerate its effect upon themselves" (Baumrind, 1973, p. 35). Permissive parents used spanking less than did either authoritative or authoritarian parents. So it could be that the prohibition of all spanking eliminates a type of mild spanking that prevents further escalation of aggression within discipline incidents (see Patterson's [1982] coercive family process). Haeuser's (1988) report suggests that Swedish parents later developed new, firm discipline responses that reduced escalations to yelling and possibly to child abuse. But adequate data on the resulting child abuse rates are lacking. In conclusion, the available Swedish data indicate that we cannot reduce child abuse just by mandating that parents stop using corporal punishment. Parents also need new, effective techniques to replace corporal punishment if it is to be outlawed. It is even possible that mild corporal punishment may play an important role in preventing escalation to abuse for some parents. The other surprise is that there has been so little empirical evaluation of the effects of Sweden's anti-spanking law. Perhaps it has seemed so obvious that eliminating parental spanking would reduce the child abuse rate that people have felt that no evaluation was needed. If so, this summary of available evidence should shake us out of our premature complacency. The role of parental discipline responses in preventing aggression in parent and child is surprisingly complex (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Patterson, 1982; Snyder & Patterson, 1995). We need better research to understand the complexities involved in parental discipline, including its relationship to child abuse. We need to discriminate effective from counterproductive forms of discipline responses, including the role of different forms of corporal punishment in increasing or decreasing the risk of child abuse. We also need better evaluations of policies designed to change parental discipline, given that the effects of the Swedish anti-spanking law seem to have had exactly the opposite effect of its intention, at least in the short term. End include Doan On 21 Feb 2005, Kane wrote: http://www.expatica.com/source/site_...story_id=16923 http://tinyurl.com/6uvlb " Parents banned from smacking children 14 February 2005 AMSTERDAM - In a proposal that will ban the giving of disciplinary smacks, the Dutch Cabinet has decided to outlaw all forms of violence against children to combat child abuse. Cabinet ministers decided on Friday that parents will in future be explicitly obligated by law to care for their children and to raise them without emotional or physical violence. ....more at the available links..... http://tinyurl.com/6uvlb [[[ Some interesting thinking in this law and it's creation ]]] Breaches of regulations can lead to supervision from welfare authorities or the loss of custody. In more serious cases, culprits can be jailed at the order of a court. In several other European countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Austria - where all forms of violence against children is a criminal offence - evidence is starting to be gathered indicating that the law leads to a reduction in the number of child abuse cases. [Copyright Expatica News 2005] http://tinyurl.com/6uvlb Notice the outcomes.....indications that the law leads to reduction in the number of child abuse cases. Kane |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The effect of spanking bans in Sweden:
http://4forums.com/political/showpos...ostcount=3D137 " Thread: Is spanking a form of child abuse? View Single Post #137 Old 05-20-2004, 02:44 AM mizmaxx's Avatar mizmaxx mizmaxx is offline Registered User Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 830 Quote: Originally Posted by King Triton And it is funny how you are given proof that it failed miserably in Sweden,but you choose to ignore the facts and spout off that only 1 study doesn`t prove anything.How about the increase in crime,assaults,etc. Well, since you asked- (emphasis mine) Child Abuse in Sweden By Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D. 1 April 9, 2003 For a number of years, various media have carried reports stating that child abuse has increased in Sweden since the passage of the 1979 corporal punishment ban. This statement, which was recently given new life in the Canadian Charter Challenge to Section 43 of the Criminal Code, is completely erroneous. All available evidence indicates that Sweden has been extremely successful in reducing rates of child physical abuse over the past few decades and that reduction has been maintained since the passage of the corporal punishment ban. The purpose of this brief report is to disseminate accurate information on this issue. 1=2E Reporting Rates vs. Rates of Actual Abuse The claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden is primarily based on misinterpretation of assault report statistics. It is the case that reporting of child physical assault has increased in Sweden since the 1970s - as it has in every nation that has raised awareness of the issue of child abuse. Reporting rates are by no means equivalent to rates of actual abuse. They are sharp reflections of/strongly tied to shifts in public awareness. For example, in the early 1960s, it was estimated that about 300 children were being maltreated in the U.S. By 1990, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect had officially recorded 2.4 million reported cases. By 1993, they had recorded almost 3 million cases. It is highly unlikely that actual child maltreatment increased by a factor of 10,000 in that period. It is also highly unlikely that only 300 children were maltreated in the U.S. in the early 1960s. It is a well-known fact that when mandatory reporting laws, public education campaigns, and other measures are implemented to increase awareness, reporting will increase. This is the goal of such measures. The Swedish reporting figures have been cited as if they are actual rates of abuse, which they are not. Recently the Swedish National Crime Prevention Council examined 434 cases of assaults on young children within the family that were reported to the police in 1990 (all cases) and 1997 (every other case). It was found that the proportion of cases involving serious injuries sustained by children in this age range had decreased substantially. The majority of reported assaults result in minor injuries or no injuries at all. On the basis of an extensive analysis of the data, the National Crime Prevention Council concluded that there has been an increase in the propensity to report cases of assault on young children, and that it is this increase that is responsible for most, if not all, of the rise in the number of such offences reported to the police@ (Nilsson, 2000, p. 68). 2=2E Prevalence of Child Physical Assault Across Time Studies conducted at various points in time demonstrate that the prevalence, frequency and harshness of assaults against children have declined dramatically in Sweden over the last two generations. Substantial proportions of women who became mothers in the 1950s struck their children at least weekly (e.g., 55% of mothers of 4-year-old daughters; 20% of mothers of 8-year-old sons) (Stattin et al., 1995). Among 3- to 5-year-old children of that generation, implements were used by 13% of mothers (Stattin et al.,1995). In contrast, 86% of youth who were born in the 1980s report never having been physically punished (Janson, 2001). Of those who were, the vast majority experienced it no more than once or twice in their childhoods (SCB, 1996). Virtually no children are hit with implements in Sweden today. It is important to note that legislative reform began many decades ago in Sweden. The corporal punishment ban was the end, not the beginning, of legal changes in that country. Most notably, the provision excusing parents who caused minor injuries to their children through physical punishment was repealed from the Swedish Penal Code in 1957. The explicit ban on physical punishment was implemented 22 years later. 3=2E Child Abuse Fatalities The incidence of homicides of children under the age of 5 can provide an estimate of child abuse mortality, as it is these children who are most vulnerable to fatal injury and the contribution of other forms of external violence is minimized among this age group. Between 1975 and 2000, the average annual number of homicides of children aged 0 to 4 in Sweden was 4. The average incidence between 1995 and 2000 (2.8) was lower than that between 1975 and 1980 (4.0) - despite population growth. The World Health Organization (2002) provides homicide incidence figures for children aged 0 to 4 in Sweden (1996), Canada (1997) and the United States (1998).2 These figures a Sweden: 3 Canada: 24 United States: 723 (Canada's population is approximately 3 times larger than Sweden's. The U=2ES. population is approximately 20 times larger than Sweden's.) Child homicides attributable specifically to physical abuse (excluding homicide-suicides, neonaticide and postnatal depression) are virtually non-existent in Sweden. Between 1976 and 2000 (the most recent year for which statistics are currently available), a total of 4 children died in Sweden as a result of physical abuse. Summary There is no evidence to support the claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden since corporal punishment was banned there in 1979. In fact, Sweden has maintained a very low rate of child abuse internationally for more than 25 years. Three Important Points 1=2E It is important to note that Sweden's law was intended to affirm children's rights; it was not expected to end all abuse of children for all time. North American assault laws have not eliminated assaults against adults, yet we recognize their importance in setting a standard of non-violence for the society, sending a clear message, and affording protection to those who have been harmed. This was the fundamental intent of Sweden's corporal punishment ban. 2=2E Legislative reform in Sweden began in 1928, when corporal punishment was forbidden in secondary schools. It was 1957 when the legal defence of reasonable correction was repealed from Sweden's Penal Code. The ban must be viewed within its historical context to be understood. 3=2E Since Sweden passed its ban on corporal punishment in 1979, 10 other nations have followed: Finland, Norway, Austria, Denmark, Cyprus, Croatia, Latvia, Israel, Germany, and Iceland. The purpose of these bans is to explicitly recognize children's rights to protection under the law - the same rights that adults take for granted. In addition, Italy's highest court has ruled that "the use of violence for educational purposes can no longer be considered lawful." 1 Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D., is a Child-Clinical Psychologist and Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Family Studies at the University of Manitoba. She is an internationally recognized expert on the Swedish ban. Over the past decade, she has conducted extensive research on this law and has lived in Sweden for extended periods to gain a full understanding of its history, implementation and effects. 2 Rates per population are not available for Sweden and Canada due to their low incidence. Incidence rates are presented here for the most recent years for which data were available in the WHO World Report on Violence and Health (2002). References Nilsson, L. (2000). Barnmisshandel: En Kartl=E4ggning av Polisanm=E4ld Misshandel av Sm=E5 Barn. Brottsf=F6rebyggande r=E5det; Stockholm. Janson, S. (2001). Barn och Misshandel. A Report to the Swedish Governmental Committee on Child Abuse and Related Issues. Statens Offentliga Utredningar; Stockholm. SCB (1996). Spanking and Other Forms of Physical Punishment: Study of Adults=3D and Middle School Students=3D Opinions, Experience, and Knowledge.@ Demografiska Rapporter, 1.2. Stattin, H., Janson, H., Klackenberg-Larsson, I., & Magnusson, D. (1995). ACorporal punishment in everyday life: An intergenerational perspective. (J. McCord, ed.) Pp 315-347. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge. World Health Organization (2002). World Report on Violence and Health. Author; Geneva. ..=2E............................................. ................. Kane: reasoned argument on this issue is scarce to invisible here. Overlooked are the many factors that contribute to abuse of children. Spanking is only ONE of those. Child deaths from abuse in Sweden, for instance, has dropped from 4 (that's not a rate folks but a whole number) to 2 in recent years. More thoughtful approaches to the concept of non-punitive parenting show in this article below. It also helps us see the history of what culminated in the spanking ban by law: http://www.bo.se/adfinity.aspx?pageid=3D90# Utskrivet fr=E5n www.bo.se The Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban For more than twenty years, the corporal punishment ban has been effective in Sweden. The Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban was passed in 1979 - ten years before the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - and was the result of more than 50 years of legislative and opinion-forming efforts related to child abuse. Corporal punishment was first banned in the Swedish grammar schools in 1927. Similar legislation was passed for elementary schools in 1958 and banned totally in 1962 in the Education Act. By 1966, parents and those responsible for children were forbidden from hitting their children. A corporal ban Ten years later, a decision in a court case concerning a father assaulting his three-year-old daughter was widely discussed. The case initiated a number of private member=B4s bills in the Swedish parliament concerning the need for an explicit prohibition of chastisement, but it wasn't until 1979 that the Swedish Parliament adopted a bill, with 256 MPs voting for and 6 MPs voting against. The arguments against were that the proposal was unnecessary and even dangerous. By removing the rights for parents to chastise the child, many well-meaning parents would be stamped as criminals and many children would never learn to behave. But one of the MPs said; "In a free democracy like our own, we use words as arguments, not blows. We talk to people and do not beat them. If we can=B4t convince our children with words, we shall never convince them with violence". This has become a rather famous statement in Sweden and one, of which it is not very easy to oppose. The ban is now an act within Chapter 6 in the Parenthood and Guardianship Code, which expressively forbids physical punishment and degrading treatment. "Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment." The Criminal Code The Code of Parenthood and Guardianship in which one finds the law against chastising children is a civil law as opposed to the Criminal code. This means that the prohibition to use corporal punishment is not in itself sanctioned. It=B4s the Criminal Code that decides whether or not an offence has been committed, but also that it is judged under the same rules which apply when adults commits acts of physical violence to adults or other people=B4s children. The Criminal Code states that anyone who causes another person physical injury, illness or pain or other harmful condition is to be convicted to a fine or prison up to two years. (Up to ten years if the crime is to be considered as severe, for example if the victim is a child). When comparing figures from other countries, including the Nordic countries, we find that corporal punishment towards children is lower in Sweden. This seems above all to concern less serious and average forms of corporal punishment whilst more serious forms, such as blows with a blunt object may still be as common as in other Nordic countries. Shifts in attitude We know that there has been a shift in attitude and opinion in Sweden on corporal punishment and that it started even before the law was effective. The Swedish Institute for Statistics has regularly investigated attitudes in the population towards corporal punishment. In 1965, 53% were positive towards corporal punishment of children, 1968-42%, 1971-35%, 1981-26% and 1994-11%. Hence, today in Sweden probably less than 10% are positive to the use of corporal punishment. The younger population is much less in favour of using physical punishment than elder generations. This shows that the ban is widely supported and well known in Sweden even amongst young children. In 1979, a special brochure was sent out to every household in the country, explaining the anti spanking ban and how to bring up children with other methods than physical punishment. The brochure was translated into several different languages. Statistics prove that corporal punishment as a way of upbringing has substantially decreased. When comparing figures in interviews with parents between the years 1980 and 2000, the results show, that corporal punishment has decreased significantly, especially in regard to striking a child with ones fist, with a blunt object or giving the child a so called "good hiding". The figures are in accordance with results from two other studies on intermediate-level pupils and twenty year-olds submitted by the Parliamentary Committee against Abuse towards Children. This means, that forceful corporal punishment, which may potentially harm the child, also has decreased significantly. On the other hand, concerning serious and unusual forms of corporal punishment, such as threats or the use of knives or firearms, the level shows no decrease. One reason could be, that malignant forms of corporal punishment, most often is part of a strong deviant behaviour in the adult as a result of mental illness or a case of abnormality or flaw in the character- personality features which are probably very little affected by general changes of attitude in society. Uncertainty As more and more people tend to report child abuse, it has become somewhat confusing as to whether child abuse in Sweden in reality has increased during the last decades. We know that much of the violence, which was "invisible" in the past, now has come out into the open, but thanks to education, information about the anti-spanking law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, awareness has increased in society concerning children's needs and violence towards children. Today, institutions like schools and day-care centres including professional groups, which come into contact with children, have a mandatory obligation to report if they consider that a child is at risk and in need of support from the social welfare system. The conclusion therefore, is that the increase of reports of child abuse is an effect of increased awareness, rather than an increase of actual violence towards children. Complex area This is a complex area that has to be put in its right context. The issue of child abuse and neglect is not only relevant to changes in legislation, but also to the changes in society that have occurred, during more than twenty years of existing legislation. There are groups of children who are deprived and in vulnerable situations and families where child abuse and neglect is more or less a constant element. These kinds of families will probably occur in any society regardless of corporal punishment bans. " Kane |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A rigorous evaluation of the effects of spanking bans in Sweden and other countries is sorely needed now that other countries are considering such bans (e.g., Germany). Published evaluations before 1999 included only 7 journal articles in English, leading to my call for "more timely and rigorous evaluations of similar social experiments in the future" (Larzelere, 1999, p. 381). Durrant (1999a) also published an evaluation of the success of Sweden's ban in 1999. Given the importance of this issue, I want to briefly compare our respective conclusions and the evidence for them. SUBSEQUENT PHYSICAL CHILD ABUSE. Durrant (1999) implied that Sweden has had minimal child abuse since 1979, whereas I could find no evidence that their child abuse rate had decreased since then. We both agree that the child abuse fatality rates have been very low in Sweden, with no significant change after the 1979 spanking ban. This is very commendable, but provides no information about the effect of the spanking ban, because the low rates preceded 1979. My review considered three major studies of non-fatal child abuse that Durrant did not consider: Gelles & Edfeldt (1986) and Wittrock (1992, 1995). Durrant cited the second Wittrock report as "SCB (1995a)" elsewhere in her article. The Gelles and Edfeldt (1986) study was the most rigorous of the 7 journal articles located for my literature review. Their comparison of national surveys in Sweden and the USA used the Conflict Tactics Scale, the most widely used survey measure of physical child abuse. Gelles and Edfeldt concluded: "Swedish parents report more pushing, grabbing or shoving than American parents and double the rate of beating children . . . American parents report more spanking. . . In general, there were far more similarities in the two countries than there were differences" (p. 506-507). Accordingly, the child abuse measure that included corporal punishment (hitting with an object) was significantly higher in the USA, whereas the child abuse measure that was identical except for excluding that item showed a 4.1% rate in the USA and a 3.6% rate in Sweden. A later (1985) American survey that was more equivalent to the Swedish survey concluded that 1.9% of American parents were abusing their child according to this measure. As Durrant pointed out, the 1975 American response rate was lower than the Gelles-Edfeldt Swedish survey done in 1980. This was probably because that American survey used face-to-face interviews, whereas the Swedish survey used telephone calls. Fortunately, the 1985 American survey used telephone calls and had an even higher response rate than the Swedish survey. Considering a variety of factors, the fairest and most conservative comparison was to compare the Swedish child abuse rate with the average of the two USA rates. By this method, the Swedish child abuse rate was 49% higher in 1980 than the average of the 1975 and 1985 USA rates (Larzelere, 1999). These findings were surprising to me, just as the original findings were to Gelles and Edfeldt. At first, I thought it might reflect a temporary upsurge in child abuse as part of a systemic change in Sweden to disciplining children without the use of spanking. But the best evidence on Swedish trends since then indicates sharply increasing rates of physical child abuse, at least in criminal records of assaults by relatives against children under the age of 7. This frequency increased from 99 in 1981 to 583 in 1994, a 489% increase. As Wittrock (1995) and I (1999) suggested, this could reflect a change in reporting mechanisms, an actual increase, or other factors. Other countries need an unbiased, objective way of deciding among these alternative explanations before emulating Swedish policies. SUBSEQUENT SUPPORT FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. Durrant and I used the identical data source to arrive at nearly opposite conclusions about the effect of the spanking ban on subsequent support for corporal punishment (Statistics Sweden, 1996; Durrant's "SCB, 1996c"). Interested readers can view a summary of this data source on the web (Sanden & Lundgren, 1997). Durrant concluded that "public support for corporal punishment has declined" (Durrant, 1999a, p. 435), whereas I concluded, "the spanking ban has made little change in problematic forms of physical punishment" (Larzelere, 1999, p. 382). Durrant arrived at her conclusion by comparing apples and oranges - or, more accurately, apples and half-oranges. She not only compared survey questions that were very different in 1981 and 1994, but she used only one of the two responses to the 1994 question that indicated qualified support for corporal punishment. The Swedish survey item in 1978, 1979, and 1981 was "a child has to be given corporal punishment from time to time," with which 26% of Swedes agreed all three years. The 11% cited by Durrant in 1994-5 were "positively inclined to milder forms of physical punishment" (Statistics Sweden, 1996, p. 8), whereas another 22% chose the following alternative response to the same question: "in principle against all forms of physical punishment, but can use such punishment if upset enough." Only 56% chose the third response, expressing opposition to all physical punishment. The same Swedish survey included the following item, which was closer in wording to the 1978-1981 item: "Mild or moderate physical punishment is sometimes necessary as a child rearing method, but should be carefully considered and not the result of anger" (Sanden, 1996, p. 10). Thirty-four percent agreed partly or fully with this item, an increase from the 26% support in 1978, just before the 1979 spanking ban. In the Discussion section of my literature review, I used the same Swedish survey to show that actual corporal punishment received had dropped very little (e.g., 32% of valid answers from those born after the spanking ban compared to 34% in the next oldest generation). Further, the most problematic types had not decreased at all (e.g., spanking of teenagers). Putting the pattern of these changes together with the available child abuse trends suggested the hypothesis quoted by Rolf Nilsson on this listserve: "So it might be hypothesized that that the prohibition of all spanking eliminates a type of mild spanking that prevents further escalation of aggression within disciplinary incidents" (Larzelere, 1999, p. 390). Corporal punishment of teenagers or when "upset enough" could increase the risk of child abuse more than a mild spanking. SUBSEQUENT ASSAULTS BY MINORS AGAINST MINORS. Durrant (1999a) concluded that those raised after the 1979 spanking ban were less likely to be perpetrators of assaults against children, relative to overall societal trends. Her primary data source supports the opposite conclusion (Wittrock, 1995; her "SCB, 1995a"). The percentage increases from 1984 to 1994 in criminal assaults against 7- to 14-year-olds were as follows: A 519% increase by minors under 15; a 231% increase by 15- to 19-year-olds; 133% by 20- to 24-year-olds; 53% by 25- to 29-year-olds; 122% by 30- to 39-year-olds; 147% by 40- to 49-year-olds; and 128% by perpetrators over 49 (Wittrock, 1995). The largest increases were for perpetrators who went through the preschool years after the spanking ban. Those who were 25 to 29 years old in 1994-5 were 10 to 14 years old when the spanking ban was passed. Yet this is the group Durrant includes in her youngest group to support her incorrect conclusion that younger persons were proportionately less involved in assaults against children. SUBSEQUENT SUPPORTIVENESS OF SOCIAL SUPPORTS. I cannot critique Durrant's conclusion on this as confidently because I do not have access to her data. Note, however, that for 46% of the families in 1995, "support and care measures" consisted of removing the child from the home (Durrant, 1999b, p. 70). Thankfully, this percentage was down from 60% of new cases in 1982. The number of new compulsory removals from the home was 7% higher in Sweden in 1995 than in 1982 (Durrant, 1999b, p. 70). A Swedish book (Ivarsson, 1984) and a Swedish lawyer (Westerberg, 1999) have claimed that the risk of children being removed from their home is much higher in Sweden than in other European countries, such as Germany and Great Britain. CONCLUSIONS. Thus my major conclusion seems very appropriate: we need "more timely and rigorous evaluations of similar social experiments in the future" (Larzelere, 1999, p. 381). The Swedish spanking ban was well-intentioned - just as a similar approach to another abuse problem led to the USA's Prohibition Amendment. That Prohibition did not live up to its high ideals - and the spanking prohibition may be faring no better. Both prohibitions may lead to more dangerous ways of either drinking or spanking, thus undermining their intended beneficial effects. We need to move beyond sole reliance on such simplistic, absolutist resolutions to these important problems. Some innovative possibilities: (1) Insist on methodologically sound evaluations of policy changes, especially when the changes are this major. Because we have not done this, we cannot be sure how to explain the 589% increase in child abuse cases, the 519% increase in assaults by minors, or why the changes in corporal punishment are so small in Sweden. (2) Emphasize empowering parents with milder, effective disciplinary tactics rather than legislating prematurely against nonabusive disciplinary tactics. (3) Explore empirically supported middle-ground positions before polarizing controversial issues to extreme positions. A balanced middle position would be more sensitive to ethnic, religious, and socio-economic differences (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997). (4) Distinguish between effective vs. counter-productive ways of using each disciplinary tactic! How parents use disciplinary tactics may be more important than what tactics they use. I hope this stimulates more careful thinking about this complex set of important issues. References Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 161-175. (11 responses to this important article appear in the same journal) Durrant, J. E. (1999a). Evaluating the success of Sweden's corporal punishment ban. Child Abuse & Neglect, 5, 435-448. Durrant, J. E. (1999b). The status of Swedish children and youth since the passage of he 1979 corporal punishment ban. London: Save the Children. Gelles, R. J., & Edfeldt, A. W. (1986). Violence towards children in the United States and Sweden. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 501-510. Gunnoe, M. L., & Mariner, C. L. (1997). Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children's aggression. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 768-775. Ivarsson, M. (1984). Sverige 1984 [Sweden 1984]. Malmo, Sweden: Lehmanns Forlag. Larzelere, R. E., & Johnson, B. (1999). Evaluation of the effects of Sweden's spanking ban on physical child abuse rates: A literature review. Psychological Reports, 85, 381-392. Sanden, A., & Lundgren, L. (1997). Spanking of children much less common. Statistika centralbryan. http://www.scb.se/scbeng/vhtm/barnaga.htm Statistics Sweden. (1996). Spanking and other forms of physical punishment (Demography, the Family, and Children 1996:1.2). Stockholm, Sweden. Westerberg, S. (1999, June 19). Lecture to the Family Education Trust, London. . Wittrock, U. (1992). Barmisshandel i kriminalstatstiken 1981-1991 [Violent crimes against children in criminal statistics, 1981-1991]. KR Info, 1992, 7. Wittrock, U. (1995). Barnmisshandel, 1984-1994 [Violent crimes against children, 1984-1994]. KR Info, 1-6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Contact information for Robert E. Larzelere You may copy, download, and print this article from this site so long as you include this web address, use it only for personal, non-commercial purposes and do not modify it or remove the copyright notice. You may post it on another site, provided you also include a link to this site. Copyright 2000 Robert E. Larzelere, All Rights Reserved http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Doan On 22 Feb 2005, Kane wrote: The effect of spanking bans in Sweden: http://4forums.com/political/showpos...ostcount=3D137 " Thread: Is spanking a form of child abuse? View Single Post #137 Old 05-20-2004, 02:44 AM mizmaxx's Avatar mizmaxx mizmaxx is offline Registered User Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 830 Quote: Originally Posted by King Triton And it is funny how you are given proof that it failed miserably in Sweden,but you choose to ignore the facts and spout off that only 1 study doesn`t prove anything.How about the increase in crime,assaults,etc. Well, since you asked- (emphasis mine) Child Abuse in Sweden By Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D. 1 April 9, 2003 For a number of years, various media have carried reports stating that child abuse has increased in Sweden since the passage of the 1979 corporal punishment ban. This statement, which was recently given new life in the Canadian Charter Challenge to Section 43 of the Criminal Code, is completely erroneous. All available evidence indicates that Sweden has been extremely successful in reducing rates of child physical abuse over the past few decades and that reduction has been maintained since the passage of the corporal punishment ban. The purpose of this brief report is to disseminate accurate information on this issue. 1. Reporting Rates vs. Rates of Actual Abuse The claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden is primarily based on misinterpretation of assault report statistics. It is the case that reporting of child physical assault has increased in Sweden since the 1970s - as it has in every nation that has raised awareness of the issue of child abuse. Reporting rates are by no means equivalent to rates of actual abuse. They are sharp reflections of/strongly tied to shifts in public awareness. For example, in the early 1960s, it was estimated that about 300 children were being maltreated in the U.S. By 1990, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect had officially recorded 2.4 million reported cases. By 1993, they had recorded almost 3 million cases. It is highly unlikely that actual child maltreatment increased by a factor of 10,000 in that period. It is also highly unlikely that only 300 children were maltreated in the U.S. in the early 1960s. It is a well-known fact that when mandatory reporting laws, public education campaigns, and other measures are implemented to increase awareness, reporting will increase. This is the goal of such measures. The Swedish reporting figures have been cited as if they are actual rates of abuse, which they are not. Recently the Swedish National Crime Prevention Council examined 434 cases of assaults on young children within the family that were reported to the police in 1990 (all cases) and 1997 (every other case). It was found that the proportion of cases involving serious injuries sustained by children in this age range had decreased substantially. The majority of reported assaults result in minor injuries or no injuries at all. On the basis of an extensive analysis of the data, the National Crime Prevention Council concluded that there has been an increase in the propensity to report cases of assault on young children, and that it is this increase that is responsible for most, if not all, of the rise in the number of such offences reported to the police@ (Nilsson, 2000, p. 68). 2. Prevalence of Child Physical Assault Across Time Studies conducted at various points in time demonstrate that the prevalence, frequency and harshness of assaults against children have declined dramatically in Sweden over the last two generations. Substantial proportions of women who became mothers in the 1950s struck their children at least weekly (e.g., 55% of mothers of 4-year-old daughters; 20% of mothers of 8-year-old sons) (Stattin et al., 1995). Among 3- to 5-year-old children of that generation, implements were used by 13% of mothers (Stattin et al.,1995). In contrast, 86% of youth who were born in the 1980s report never having been physically punished (Janson, 2001). Of those who were, the vast majority experienced it no more than once or twice in their childhoods (SCB, 1996). Virtually no children are hit with implements in Sweden today. It is important to note that legislative reform began many decades ago in Sweden. The corporal punishment ban was the end, not the beginning, of legal changes in that country. Most notably, the provision excusing parents who caused minor injuries to their children through physical punishment was repealed from the Swedish Penal Code in 1957. The explicit ban on physical punishment was implemented 22 years later. 3. Child Abuse Fatalities The incidence of homicides of children under the age of 5 can provide an estimate of child abuse mortality, as it is these children who are most vulnerable to fatal injury and the contribution of other forms of external violence is minimized among this age group. Between 1975 and 2000, the average annual number of homicides of children aged 0 to 4 in Sweden was 4. The average incidence between 1995 and 2000 (2.8) was lower than that between 1975 and 1980 (4.0) - despite population growth. The World Health Organization (2002) provides homicide incidence figures for children aged 0 to 4 in Sweden (1996), Canada (1997) and the United States (1998).2 These figures a Sweden: 3 Canada: 24 United States: 723 (Canada's population is approximately 3 times larger than Sweden's. The U.S. population is approximately 20 times larger than Sweden's.) Child homicides attributable specifically to physical abuse (excluding homicide-suicides, neonaticide and postnatal depression) are virtually non-existent in Sweden. Between 1976 and 2000 (the most recent year for which statistics are currently available), a total of 4 children died in Sweden as a result of physical abuse. Summary There is no evidence to support the claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden since corporal punishment was banned there in 1979. In fact, Sweden has maintained a very low rate of child abuse internationally for more than 25 years. Three Important Points 1. It is important to note that Sweden's law was intended to affirm children's rights; it was not expected to end all abuse of children for all time. North American assault laws have not eliminated assaults against adults, yet we recognize their importance in setting a standard of non-violence for the society, sending a clear message, and affording protection to those who have been harmed. This was the fundamental intent of Sweden's corporal punishment ban. 2. Legislative reform in Sweden began in 1928, when corporal punishment was forbidden in secondary schools. It was 1957 when the legal defence of reasonable correction was repealed from Sweden's Penal Code. The ban must be viewed within its historical context to be understood. 3. Since Sweden passed its ban on corporal punishment in 1979, 10 other nations have followed: Finland, Norway, Austria, Denmark, Cyprus, Croatia, Latvia, Israel, Germany, and Iceland. The purpose of these bans is to explicitly recognize children's rights to protection under the law - the same rights that adults take for granted. In addition, Italy's highest court has ruled that "the use of violence for educational purposes can no longer be considered lawful." 1 Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D., is a Child-Clinical Psychologist and Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Family Studies at the University of Manitoba. She is an internationally recognized expert on the Swedish ban. Over the past decade, she has conducted extensive research on this law and has lived in Sweden for extended periods to gain a full understanding of its history, implementation and effects. 2 Rates per population are not available for Sweden and Canada due to their low incidence. Incidence rates are presented here for the most recent years for which data were available in the WHO World Report on Violence and Health (2002). References Nilsson, L. (2000). Barnmisshandel: En Kartl=E4ggning av Polisanm=E4ld Misshandel av Sm=E5 Barn. Brottsf=F6rebyggande r=E5det; Stockholm. Janson, S. (2001). Barn och Misshandel. A Report to the Swedish Governmental Committee on Child Abuse and Related Issues. Statens Offentliga Utredningar; Stockholm. SCB (1996). Spanking and Other Forms of Physical Punishment: Study of Adults=3D and Middle School Students=3D Opinions, Experience, and Knowledge.@ Demografiska Rapporter, 1.2. Stattin, H., Janson, H., Klackenberg-Larsson, I., & Magnusson, D. (1995). ACorporal punishment in everyday life: An intergenerational perspective. (J. McCord, ed.) Pp 315-347. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge. World Health Organization (2002). World Report on Violence and Health. Author; Geneva. .................................................. .............. Kane: reasoned argument on this issue is scarce to invisible here. Overlooked are the many factors that contribute to abuse of children. Spanking is only ONE of those. Child deaths from abuse in Sweden, for instance, has dropped from 4 (that's not a rate folks but a whole number) to 2 in recent years. More thoughtful approaches to the concept of non-punitive parenting show in this article below. It also helps us see the history of what culminated in the spanking ban by law: http://www.bo.se/adfinity.aspx?pageid=3D90# Utskrivet fr=E5n www.bo.se The Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban For more than twenty years, the corporal punishment ban has been effective in Sweden. The Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban was passed in 1979 - ten years before the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - and was the result of more than 50 years of legislative and opinion-forming efforts related to child abuse. Corporal punishment was first banned in the Swedish grammar schools in 1927. Similar legislation was passed for elementary schools in 1958 and banned totally in 1962 in the Education Act. By 1966, parents and those responsible for children were forbidden from hitting their children. A corporal ban Ten years later, a decision in a court case concerning a father assaulting his three-year-old daughter was widely discussed. The case initiated a number of private member=B4s bills in the Swedish parliament concerning the need for an explicit prohibition of chastisement, but it wasn't until 1979 that the Swedish Parliament adopted a bill, with 256 MPs voting for and 6 MPs voting against. The arguments against were that the proposal was unnecessary and even dangerous. By removing the rights for parents to chastise the child, many well-meaning parents would be stamped as criminals and many children would never learn to behave. But one of the MPs said; "In a free democracy like our own, we use words as arguments, not blows. We talk to people and do not beat them. If we can=B4t convince our children with words, we shall never convince them with violence". This has become a rather famous statement in Sweden and one, of which it is not very easy to oppose. The ban is now an act within Chapter 6 in the Parenthood and Guardianship Code, which expressively forbids physical punishment and degrading treatment. "Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment." The Criminal Code The Code of Parenthood and Guardianship in which one finds the law against chastising children is a civil law as opposed to the Criminal code. This means that the prohibition to use corporal punishment is not in itself sanctioned. It=B4s the Criminal Code that decides whether or not an offence has been committed, but also that it is judged under the same rules which apply when adults commits acts of physical violence to adults or other people=B4s children. The Criminal Code states that anyone who causes another person physical injury, illness or pain or other harmful condition is to be convicted to a fine or prison up to two years. (Up to ten years if the crime is to be considered as severe, for example if the victim is a child). When comparing figures from other countries, including the Nordic countries, we find that corporal punishment towards children is lower in Sweden. This seems above all to concern less serious and average forms of corporal punishment whilst more serious forms, such as blows with a blunt object may still be as common as in other Nordic countries. Shifts in attitude We know that there has been a shift in attitude and opinion in Sweden on corporal punishment and that it started even before the law was effective. The Swedish Institute for Statistics has regularly investigated attitudes in the population towards corporal punishment. In 1965, 53% were positive towards corporal punishment of children, 1968-42%, 1971-35%, 1981-26% and 1994-11%. Hence, today in Sweden probably less than 10% are positive to the use of corporal punishment. The younger population is much less in favour of using physical punishment than elder generations. This shows that the ban is widely supported and well known in Sweden even amongst young children. In 1979, a special brochure was sent out to every household in the country, explaining the anti spanking ban and how to bring up children with other methods than physical punishment. The brochure was translated into several different languages. Statistics prove that corporal punishment as a way of upbringing has substantially decreased. When comparing figures in interviews with parents between the years 1980 and 2000, the results show, that corporal punishment has decreased significantly, especially in regard to striking a child with ones fist, with a blunt object or giving the child a so called "good hiding". The figures are in accordance with results from two other studies on intermediate-level pupils and twenty year-olds submitted by the Parliamentary Committee against Abuse towards Children. This means, that forceful corporal punishment, which may potentially harm the child, also has decreased significantly. On the other hand, concerning serious and unusual forms of corporal punishment, such as threats or the use of knives or firearms, the level shows no decrease. One reason could be, that malignant forms of corporal punishment, most often is part of a strong deviant behaviour in the adult as a result of mental illness or a case of abnormality or flaw in the character- personality features which are probably very little affected by general changes of attitude in society. Uncertainty As more and more people tend to report child abuse, it has become somewhat confusing as to whether child abuse in Sweden in reality has increased during the last decades. We know that much of the violence, which was "invisible" in the past, now has come out into the open, but thanks to education, information about the anti-spanking law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, awareness has increased in society concerning children's needs and violence towards children. Today, institutions like schools and day-care centres including professional groups, which come into contact with children, have a mandatory obligation to report if they consider that a child is at risk and in need of support from the social welfare system. The conclusion therefore, is that the increase of reports of child abuse is an effect of increased awareness, rather than an increase of actual violence towards children. Complex area This is a complex area that has to be put in its right context. The issue of child abuse and neglect is not only relevant to changes in legislation, but also to the changes in society that have occurred, during more than twenty years of existing legislation. There are groups of children who are deprived and in vulnerable situations and families where child abuse and neglect is more or less a constant element. These kinds of families will probably occur in any society regardless of corporal punishment bans. " Kane |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"This is a complex area that has to be put in its right context. The issue of child abuse and neglect is not only relevant to changes in legislation, but also to the changes in society that have occurred, during more than twenty years of existing legislation. There are groups of children who are deprived and in vulnerable situations and families where child abuse and neglect is more or less a constant element. These kinds of families will probably occur in any society regardless of corporal punishment bans." http://www.bo.se/adfinity.aspx?pageid=3D90 Doan On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Doan wrote: A rigorous evaluation of the effects of spanking bans in Sweden and other countries is sorely needed now that other countries are considering such bans (e.g., Germany). Published evaluations before 1999 included only 7 journal articles in English, leading to my call for "more timely and rigorous evaluations of similar social experiments in the future" (Larzelere, 1999, p. 381). Durrant (1999a) also published an evaluation o= f the success of Sweden's ban in 1999. Given the importance of this issue, = I want to briefly compare our respective conclusions and the evidence for them. SUBSEQUENT PHYSICAL CHILD ABUSE. Durrant (1999) implied that Sweden has had minimal child abuse since 1979, whereas I could find no evidence that their child abuse rate had decreased since then. We both agree that the child abuse fatality rates have been very low in Sweden, with no significant change after the 1979 spanking ban. This is very commendable, but provides no information about the effect of the spanking ban, because the low rates preceded 1979. My review considered three major studies of non-fatal child abuse that Durrant did not consider: Gelles & Edfeldt (1986) and Wittrock (1992, 1995). Durrant cited the second Wittrock repor= t as "SCB (1995a)" elsewhere in her article. The Gelles and Edfeldt (1986) study was the most rigorous of the 7 journa= l articles located for my literature review. Their comparison of national surveys in Sweden and the USA used the Conflict Tactics Scale, the most widely used survey measure of physical child abuse. Gelles and Edfeldt concluded: "Swedish parents report more pushing, grabbing or shoving than American parents and double the rate of beating children . . . American parents report more spanking. . . In general, there were far more similarities in the two countries than there were differences" (p. 506-507). Accordingly, the child abuse measure that included corporal punishment (hitting with an object) was significantly higher in the USA, whereas the child abuse measure that was identical except for excluding that item showed a 4.1% rate in the USA and a 3.6% rate in Sweden. A later (1985) American survey that was more equivalent to the Swedish survey concluded that 1.9% of American parents were abusing their child according to this measure. As Durrant pointed out, the 1975 American response rate was lower than th= e Gelles-Edfeldt Swedish survey done in 1980. This was probably because tha= t American survey used face-to-face interviews, whereas the Swedish survey used telephone calls. Fortunately, the 1985 American survey used telephon= e calls and had an even higher response rate than the Swedish survey. Considering a variety of factors, the fairest and most conservative comparison was to compare the Swedish child abuse rate with the average o= f the two USA rates. By this method, the Swedish child abuse rate was 49% higher in 1980 than the average of the 1975 and 1985 USA rates (Larzelere= , 1999). These findings were surprising to me, just as the original finding= s were to Gelles and Edfeldt. At first, I thought it might reflect a temporary upsurge in child abuse as part of a systemic change in Sweden t= o disciplining children without the use of spanking. But the best evidence on Swedish trends since then indicates sharply increasing rates of physical child abuse, at least in criminal records of assaults by relatives against children under the age of 7. This frequency increased from 99 in 1981 to 583 in 1994, a 489% increase. As Wittrock (1995) and I (1999) suggested, this could reflect a change in reporting mechanisms, an actual increase, or other factors. Other countries need an unbiased, objective way of deciding among these alternative explanations before emulating Swedish policies. SUBSEQUENT SUPPORT FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. Durrant and I used the identical data source to arrive at nearly opposite conclusions about the effect of the spanking ban on subsequent support for corporal punishment (Statistics Sweden, 1996; Durrant's "SCB, 1996c"). Interested readers can view a summary of this data source on the web (Sanden & Lundgren, 1997). Durrant concluded that "public support for corporal punishment has declined" (Durrant, 1999a, p. 435), whereas I concluded, "the spanking ba= n has made little change in problematic forms of physical punishment" (Larzelere, 1999, p. 382). Durrant arrived at her conclusion by comparing apples and oranges - or, more accurately, apples and half-oranges. She no= t only compared survey questions that were very different in 1981 and 1994, but she used only one of the two responses to the 1994 question that indicated qualified support for corporal punishment. The Swedish survey item in 1978, 1979, and 1981 was "a child has to be given corporal punishment from time to time," with which 26% of Swedes agreed all three years. The 11% cited by Durrant in 1994-5 were "positively inclined to milder forms of physical punishment" (Statistics Sweden, 1996, p. 8), whereas another 22% chose the following alternative response to the same question: "in principle against all forms of physica= l punishment, but can use such punishment if upset enough." Only 56% chose the third response, expressing opposition to all physical punishment. The same Swedish survey included the following item, which was closer in wording to the 1978-1981 item: "Mild or moderate physical punishment is sometimes necessary as a child rearing method, but should be carefully considered and not the result of anger" (Sanden, 1996, p. 10). Thirty-fou= r percent agreed partly or fully with this item, an increase from the 26% support in 1978, just before the 1979 spanking ban. In the Discussion section of my literature review, I used the same Swedis= h survey to show that actual corporal punishment received had dropped very little (e.g., 32% of valid answers from those born after the spanking ban compared to 34% in the next oldest generation). Further, the most problematic types had not decreased at all (e.g., spanking of teenagers). Putting the pattern of these changes together with the available child abuse trends suggested the hypothesis quoted by Rolf Nilsson on this listserve: "So it might be hypothesized that that the prohibition of all spanking eliminates a type of mild spanking that prevents further escalation of aggression within disciplinary incidents" (Larzelere, 1999, p. 390). Corporal punishment of teenagers or when "upset enough" could increase the risk of child abuse more than a mild spanking. SUBSEQUENT ASSAULTS BY MINORS AGAINST MINORS. Durrant (1999a) concluded that those raised after the 1979 spanking ban were less likely to be perpetrators of assaults against children, relative to overall societal trends. Her primary data source supports the opposite conclusion (Wittrock, 1995; her "SCB, 1995a"). The percentage increases from 1984 to 1994 in criminal assaults against 7- to 14-year-olds were as follows: A 519% increase by minors under 15; a 231% increase by 15- to 19-year-olds; 133% by 20- to 24-year-olds; 53% by 25- to 29-year-olds; 122% by 30- to 39-year-olds; 147% by 40- to 49-year-olds; and 128% by perpetrators over 49 (Wittrock, 1995). The largest increases were for perpetrators who went through the preschool years after the spanking ban. Those who were 25 to 29 years old in 1994-5 were 10 to 14 years old when the spanking ban was passed. Yet this is the group Durrant includes in her youngest group to support her incorrect conclusion that younger persons were proportionatel= y less involved in assaults against children. SUBSEQUENT SUPPORTIVENESS OF SOCIAL SUPPORTS. I cannot critique Durrant's conclusion on this as confidently because I do not have access to her data. Note, however, that for 46% of the families in 1995, "support and care measures" consisted of removing the child from the home (Durrant, 1999b, p. 70). Thankfully, this percentage was down from 60% of new cases in 1982. The number of new compulsory removals from the home was 7% highe= r in Sweden in 1995 than in 1982 (Durrant, 1999b, p. 70). A Swedish book (Ivarsson, 1984) and a Swedish lawyer (Westerberg, 1999) have claimed tha= t the risk of children being removed from their home is much higher in Sweden than in other European countries, such as Germany and Great Britain. CONCLUSIONS. Thus my major conclusion seems very appropriate: we need "more timely and rigorous evaluations of similar social experiments in th= e future" (Larzelere, 1999, p. 381). The Swedish spanking ban was well-intentioned - just as a similar approach to another abuse problem le= d to the USA's Prohibition Amendment. That Prohibition did not live up to its high ideals - and the spanking prohibition may be faring no better. Both prohibitions may lead to more dangerous ways of either drinking or spanking, thus undermining their intended beneficial effects. We need to move beyond sole reliance on such simplistic, absolutist resolutions to these important problems. Some innovative possibilities: (1) Insist on methodologically sound evaluations of policy changes, especially when the changes are this major. Because we have not done this= , we cannot be sure how to explain the 589% increase in child abuse cases, the 519% increase in assaults by minors, or why the changes in corporal punishment are so small in Sweden. (2) Emphasize empowering parents with milder, effective disciplinary tactics rather than legislating prematurel= y against nonabusive disciplinary tactics. (3) Explore empirically supporte= d middle-ground positions before polarizing controversial issues to extreme positions. A balanced middle position would be more sensitive to ethnic, religious, and socio-economic differences (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997). (4) Distinguish between effective vs. counter-productive ways of using each disciplinary tactic! How parents us= e disciplinary tactics may be more important than what tactics they use. I hope this stimulates more careful thinking about this complex set of important issues. References Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problem= s and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 161-175. (11 responses to this important article appear in the same journal) Durrant, J. E. (1999a). Evaluating the success of Sweden's corporal punishment ban. Child Abuse & Neglect, 5, 435-448. Durrant, J. E. (1999b). The status of Swedish children and youth since th= e passage of he 1979 corporal punishment ban. London: Save the Children. Gelles, R. J., & Edfeldt, A. W. (1986). Violence towards children in the United States and Sweden. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 501-510. Gunnoe, M. L., & Mariner, C. L. (1997). Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children's aggression. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 768-775. Ivarsson, M. (1984). Sverige 1984 [Sweden 1984]. Malmo, Sweden: Lehmanns Forlag. Larzelere, R. E., & Johnson, B. (1999). Evaluation of the effects of Sweden's spanking ban on physical child abuse rates: A literature review. Psychological Reports, 85, 381-392. Sanden, A., & Lundgren, L. (1997). Spanking of children much less common. Statistika centralbryan. http://www.scb.se/scbeng/vhtm/barnaga.htm Statistics Sweden. (1996). Spanking and other forms of physical punishmen= t (Demography, the Family, and Children 1996:1.2). Stockholm, Sweden. Westerberg, S. (1999, June 19). Lecture to the Family Education Trust, London. . Wittrock, U. (1992). Barmisshandel i kriminalstatstiken 1981-1991 [Violen= t crimes against children in criminal statistics, 1981-1991]. KR Info, 1992= , 7. Wittrock, U. (1995). Barnmisshandel, 1984-1994 [Violent crimes against children, 1984-1994]. KR Info, 1-6. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- Contact information for Robert E. Larzelere You may copy, download, and print this article from this site so long as you include this web address, use it only for personal, non-commercial purposes and do not modify it or remove the copyright notice. You may pos= t it on another site, provided you also include a link to this site. Copyright 2000 Robert E. Larzelere, All Rights Reserved http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- Doan On 22 Feb 2005, Kane wrote: The effect of spanking bans in Sweden: http://4forums.com/political/showpos...ostcount=3D137 " Thread: Is spanking a form of child abuse? View Single Post #137 Old 05-20-2004, 02:44 AM mizmaxx's Avatar mizmaxx mizmaxx is offline Registered User Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 830 Quote: Originally Posted by King Triton And it is funny how you are given proof that it failed miserably in Sweden,but you choose to ignore the facts and spout off that only 1 study doesn`t prove anything.How about the increase in crime,assaults,etc. Well, since you asked- (emphasis mine) Child Abuse in Sweden By Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D. 1 April 9, 2003 For a number of years, various media have carried reports stating that child abuse has increased in Sweden since the passage of the 1979 corporal punishment ban. This statement, which was recently given new life in the Canadian Charter Challenge to Section 43 of the Criminal Code, is completely erroneous. All available evidence indicates that Sweden has been extremely successful in reducing rates of child physical abuse over the past few decades and that reduction has been maintained since the passage of the corporal punishment ban. The purpose of this brief report is to disseminate accurate information on this issue. 1. Reporting Rates vs. Rates of Actual Abuse The claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden is primarily based on misinterpretation of assault report statistics. It is the case that reporting of child physical assault has increased in Sweden since the 1970s - as it has in every nation that has raised awareness of the issue of child abuse. Reporting rates are by no means equivalent to rates of actual abuse. They are sharp reflections of/strongly tied to shifts in public awareness. For example, in the early 1960s, it was estimated that about 300 children were being maltreated in the U.S. By 1990, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect had officially recorded 2.4 million reported cases. By 1993, they had recorded almost 3 million cases. It is highly unlikely that actual child maltreatment increased by a factor of 10,000 in that period. It is also highly unlikely that only 300 children were maltreated in the U.S. in the early 1960s. It is a well-known fact that when mandatory reporting laws, public education campaigns, and other measures are implemented to increase awareness, reporting will increase. This is the goal of such measures. The Swedish reporting figures have been cited as if they are actual rates of abuse, which they are not. Recently the Swedish National Crime Prevention Council examined 434 cases of assaults on young children within the family that were reported to the police in 1990 (all cases) and 1997 (every other case). It was found that the proportion of cases involving serious injuries sustained by children in this age range had decreased substantially. The majority of reported assaults result in minor injuries or no injuries at all. On the basis of an extensive analysis of the data, the National Crime Prevention Council concluded that there has been an increase in the propensity to report cases of assault on young children, and that it is this increase that is responsible for most, if not all, of the rise in the number of such offences reported to the police@ (Nilsson, 2000, p. 68). 2. Prevalence of Child Physical Assault Across Time Studies conducted at various points in time demonstrate that the prevalence, frequency and harshness of assaults against children have declined dramatically in Sweden over the last two generations. Substantial proportions of women who became mothers in the 1950s struck their children at least weekly (e.g., 55% of mothers of 4-year-old daughters; 20% of mothers of 8-year-old sons) (Stattin et al., 1995). Among 3- to 5-year-old children of that generation, implements were used by 13% of mothers (Stattin et al.,1995). In contrast, 86% of youth who were born in the 1980s report never having been physically punished (Janson, 2001). Of those who were, the vast majority experienced it no more than once or twice in their childhoods (SCB, 1996). Virtually no children are hit with implements in Sweden today. It is important to note that legislative reform began many decades ago in Sweden. The corporal punishment ban was the end, not the beginning, of legal changes in that country. Most notably, the provision excusing parents who caused minor injuries to their children through physical punishment was repealed from the Swedish Penal Code in 1957. The explicit ban on physical punishment was implemented 22 years later. 3. Child Abuse Fatalities The incidence of homicides of children under the age of 5 can provide an estimate of child abuse mortality, as it is these children who are most vulnerable to fatal injury and the contribution of other forms of external violence is minimized among this age group. Between 1975 and 2000, the average annual number of homicides of children aged 0 to 4 in Sweden was 4. The average incidence between 1995 and 2000 (2.8) was lower than that between 1975 and 1980 (4.0) - despite population growth. The World Health Organization (2002) provides homicide incidence figures for children aged 0 to 4 in Sweden (1996), Canada (1997) and the United States (1998).2 These figures a Sweden: 3 Canada: 24 United States: 723 (Canada's population is approximately 3 times larger than Sweden's. The U.S. population is approximately 20 times larger than Sweden's.) Child homicides attributable specifically to physical abuse (excluding homicide-suicides, neonaticide and postnatal depression) are virtually non-existent in Sweden. Between 1976 and 2000 (the most recent year for which statistics are currently available), a total of 4 children died in Sweden as a result of physical abuse. Summary There is no evidence to support the claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden since corporal punishment was banned there in 1979. In fact, Sweden has maintained a very low rate of child abuse internationally for more than 25 years. Three Important Points 1. It is important to note that Sweden's law was intended to affirm children's rights; it was not expected to end all abuse of children for all time. North American assault laws have not eliminated assaults against adults, yet we recognize their importance in setting a standard of non-violence for the society, sending a clear message, and affording protection to those who have been harmed. This was the fundamental intent of Sweden's corporal punishment ban. 2. Legislative reform in Sweden began in 1928, when corporal punishment was forbidden in secondary schools. It was 1957 when the legal defence of reasonable correction was repealed from Sweden's Penal Code. The ban must be viewed within its historical context to be understood. 3. Since Sweden passed its ban on corporal punishment in 1979, 10 other nations have followed: Finland, Norway, Austria, Denmark, Cyprus, Croatia, Latvia, Israel, Germany, and Iceland. The purpose of these bans is to explicitly recognize children's rights to protection under the law - the same rights that adults take for granted. In addition, Italy's highest court has ruled that "the use of violence for educational purposes can no longer be considered lawful." 1 Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D., is a Child-Clinical Psychologist and Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Family Studies at the University of Manitoba. She is an internationally recognized expert on the Swedish ban. Over the past decade, she has conducted extensive research on this law and has lived in Sweden for extended periods to gain a full understanding of its history, implementation and effects. 2 Rates per population are not available for Sweden and Canada due to their low incidence. Incidence rates are presented here for the most recent years for which data were available in the WHO World Report on Violence and Health (2002). References Nilsson, L. (2000). Barnmisshandel: En Kartl=E4ggning av Polisanm=E4ld Misshandel av Sm=E5 Barn. Brottsf=F6rebyggande r=E5det; Stockholm. Janson, S. (2001). Barn och Misshandel. A Report to the Swedish Governmental Committee on Child Abuse and Related Issues. Statens Offentliga Utredningar; Stockholm. SCB (1996). Spanking and Other Forms of Physical Punishment: Study of Adults=3D and Middle School Students=3D Opinions, Experience, and Knowledge.@ Demografiska Rapporter, 1.2. Stattin, H., Janson, H., Klackenberg-Larsson, I., & Magnusson, D. (1995). ACorporal punishment in everyday life: An intergenerational perspective. (J. McCord, ed.) Pp 315-347. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge. World Health Organization (2002). World Report on Violence and Health. Author; Geneva. .................................................. .............. Kane: reasoned argument on this issue is scarce to invisible here. Overlooked are the many factors that contribute to abuse of children. Spanking is only ONE of those. Child deaths from abuse in Sweden, for instance, has dropped from 4 (that's not a rate folks but a whole number) to 2 in recent years. More thoughtful approaches to the concept of non-punitive parenting show in this article below. It also helps us see the history of what culminated in the spanking ban by law: http://www.bo.se/adfinity.aspx?pageid=3D90# Utskrivet fr=E5n www.bo.se The Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban For more than twenty years, the corporal punishment ban has been effective in Sweden. The Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban was passed in 1979 - ten years before the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - and was the result of more than 50 years of legislative and opinion-forming efforts related to child abuse. Corporal punishment was first banned in the Swedish grammar schools in 1927. Similar legislation was passed for elementary schools in 1958 and banned totally in 1962 in the Education Act. By 1966, parents and those responsible for children were forbidden from hitting their children. A corporal ban Ten years later, a decision in a court case concerning a father assaulting his three-year-old daughter was widely discussed. The case initiated a number of private member=B4s bills in the Swedish parliamen= t concerning the need for an explicit prohibition of chastisement, but it wasn't until 1979 that the Swedish Parliament adopted a bill, with 256 MPs voting for and 6 MPs voting against. The arguments against were that the proposal was unnecessary and even dangerous. By removing the rights for parents to chastise the child, many well-meaning parents would be stamped as criminals and many children would never learn to behave. But one of the MPs said; "In a free democracy like our own, we use words as arguments, not blows. We talk to people and do not beat them. If we can=B4t convince our childre= n with words, we shall never convince them with violence". This has become a rather famous statement in Sweden and one, of which it is not very easy to oppose. The ban is now an act within Chapter 6 in the Parenthood and Guardianship Code, which expressively forbids physical punishment and degrading treatment. "Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment." The Criminal Code The Code of Parenthood and Guardianship in which one finds the law against chastising children is a civil law as opposed to the Criminal code. This means that the prohibition to use corporal punishment is not in itself sanctioned. It=B4s the Criminal Code that decides whether or not an offence has been committed, but also that it is judged under the same rules which apply when adults commits acts of physical violence to adults or other people=B4s children. The Criminal Code states that anyone who causes another person physical injury, illness or pain or other harmful condition is to be convicted to a fine or prison up to two years. (Up to ten years if the crime is to be considered as severe, for example if the victim is a child). When comparing figures from other countries, including the Nordic countries, we find that corporal punishment towards children is lower in Sweden. This seems above all to concern less serious and average forms of corporal punishment whilst more serious forms, such as blows with a blunt object may still be as common as in other Nordic countries. Shifts in attitude We know that there has been a shift in attitude and opinion in Sweden on corporal punishment and that it started even before the law was effective. The Swedish Institute for Statistics has regularly investigated attitudes in the population towards corporal punishment. In 1965, 53% were positive towards corporal punishment of children, 1968-42%, 1971-35%, 1981-26% and 1994-11%. Hence, today in Sweden probably less than 10% are positive to the use of corporal punishment. The younger population is much less in favour of using physical punishment than elder generations. This shows that the ban is widely supported and well known in Sweden even amongst young children. In 1979, a special brochure was sent out to every household in the country, explaining the anti spanking ban and how to bring up children with other methods than physical punishment. The brochure was translated into several different languages. Statistics prove that corporal punishment as a way of upbringing has substantially decreased. When comparing figures in interviews with parents between the years 1980 and 2000, the results show, that corporal punishment has decreased significantly, especially in regard to striking a child with ones fist, with a blunt object or giving the child a so called "good hiding". The figures are in accordance with results from two other studies on intermediate-level pupils and twenty year-olds submitted by the Parliamentary Committee against Abuse towards Children. This means, that forceful corporal punishment, which may potentially harm the child, also has decreased significantly. On the other hand, concerning serious and unusual forms of corporal punishment, such as threats or the use of knives or firearms, the level shows no decrease. One reason could be, that malignant forms of corporal punishment, most often is part of a strong deviant behaviour in the adult as a result of mental illness or a case of abnormality or flaw in the character- personality features which are probably very little affected by general changes of attitude in society. Uncertainty As more and more people tend to report child abuse, it has become somewhat confusing as to whether child abuse in Sweden in reality has increased during the last decades. We know that much of the violence, which was "invisible" in the past, now has come out into the open, but thanks to education, information about the anti-spanking law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, awareness has increased in society concerning children's needs and violence towards children. Today, institutions like schools and day-care centres including professional groups, which come into contact with children, have a mandatory obligation to report if they consider that a child is at risk and in need of support from the social welfare system. The conclusion therefore, is that the increase of reports of child abuse is an effect of increased awareness, rather than an increase of actual violence towards children. Complex area This is a complex area that has to be put in its right context. The issue of child abuse and neglect is not only relevant to changes in legislation, but also to the changes in society that have occurred, during more than twenty years of existing legislation. There are groups of children who are deprived and in vulnerable situations and families where child abuse and neglect is more or less a constant element. These kinds of families will probably occur in any society regardless of corporal punishment bans. " Kane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Even if banning spanking DID lead to a reduction in
Child Abuse, it does not make such government intrusion legally or morally right. Government in general has proved to be so unabashedly INEPT at whatever it does that the LAST place government needs to interfere is in how parents raise their children. Is the INTENT of such extremes of government intrusion to make rule by THE STATE much more acceptable, paving the way for total SOCIALISM? Must people be so COWED by government that they accept such intrusions in the name of a purported or actual "good cause"? Do the ends justify the intrusive means? High Courts in the USA have decided that they do not. Child Protection agencies, eager for more bodies and therefore more FUNDING, seek endless expansion into any imagineable province of family life. Our society has become so debased that basic right and wrong no longer matter, and are matters brought up for debate, to be MANIPULATED and conned around by the devious. The collapse of mighty Enron brought about a wave of corporations displaying a Code Of Ethical Conduct and holding employee training on ethics. I have reason to believe that in many of these companies it is more of a PR move and a tactic to avoid some litigation, rather than anything heartfelt or truly adhered to. What happens when it looks smarter for the company to "lawyer up" than to do what their ethical code promises? Right and wrong just don't matter in our culture of competing self interests and competing AGENCY or Corporate interests. Tort reform for example, works against citizens and in favor of corporations. Sure, it might have advantages, but did somebody forget that it has DISADVANTAGES also? The excuses about Big Pharma and other needing to be protected from big law suits sure don't play well after recent revelations that FDA has been operating like a prostitute to the Big Pharma companies. Why should a doctor who commits truly idiotic malpractice be protected from law suit payouts? To encourage more of them to leave hemostats or sponges in people's guts during surgery? When a doctor does something that dumb, WHY protect them from law suit? Again I say, our society has gotten so far from basic right and wrong that even something this blatantly WRONG can be argued for! Instead of governent enlarging itself into areas where government has already proven to be totally incompetent, like the raising of children, perhaps government should get rid of the dead weight, Rube Goldberg style entitlements, circular arguments for itself, and pare down to the few things that really ARE necessary and try to do those well. As it is, the very word government stands for ineptitute, incompetence and deliberate lies. Is that the backbone of our moral fibre? The model for parenting? Worthy of second guessing anybody? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Greegor wrote: Even if banning spanking DID lead to a reduction in Child Abuse, it does not make such government intrusion legally or morally right. Which clarifies, brilliantly, your own morals, and your opinion of the legal rights of others. Government in general has proved to be so unabashedly INEPT at whatever it does that the LAST place government needs to interfere is in how parents raise their children. No, actually governments that no long exist prove their ineptitude, not ones that are in existense, have been for some time, and have successful prosperous nations. The US seems to qualify. So far. When the government falls, you get back to me, okay? Is the INTENT of such extremes of government intrusion to make rule by THE STATE much more acceptable, paving the way for total SOCIALISM? Nope. It's the intention to remove children from the circumstance of pain and the bad outcomes that so often accompany such experiences. Must people be so COWED by government that they accept such intrusions in the name of a purported or actual "good cause"? No, that is not true. That is your fantasy. Most people do a great deal of definance of government. It's a custom in many countries, even highly oppressive ones where it's dangerous to do so. China comes to mind. France. England..oh dear, now there is an interestingly sly people. They can look and talk sooooo compliant, while they are among the most bloody minded of all. I like'em of course. Some of my ancestors you see...........r r r r r.. Do the ends justify the intrusive means? Yes, sometimes they do. If you are being beaten would you suggest the cop driving by not intrude, since she is a government agent? Same goes for kids that are being beaten, starved, raped, or otherwise abused. High Courts in the USA have decided that they do not. No, that is false. It is only certain circumstances, no blanket decision that children should not be protected from abuse and neglect. Child Protection agencies, eager for more bodies and therefore more FUNDING, seek endless expansion into any imagineable province of family life. Nonsense. They do not drive legislation nearly as much as private non-profits that support child welfare and safety. CPS tends to, in fact, try to get laws made LESS intrusive and more clearly definable. Our society has become so debased that basic right and wrong no longer matter, and are matters brought up for debate, to be MANIPULATED and conned around by the devious. The cry of the criminal from time out of mind. It's the old, "I want to do things my way and not be stopped or have to pay for it" bull****. The collapse of mighty Enron brought about a wave of corporations displaying a Code Of Ethical Conduct and holding employee training on ethics. Which has what to do with your claim? I have reason to believe that in many of these companies it is more of a PR move and a tactic to avoid some litigation, rather than anything heartfelt or truly adhered to. Well, boyoh, that's the nature of humanity, now isn't it? We do tend to move away from pain, and toward pleasure. We share that with other organic forms of life. You are a prime example. Look at your history. What happens when it looks smarter for the company to "lawyer up" than to do what their ethical code promises? They get sued some more. More go to trial and prison. Right and wrong just don't matter in our culture of competing self interests and competing AGENCY or Corporate interests. Nonsense. You are smokin' again. Tort reform for example, works against citizens and in favor of corporations. Yep. So? You want the right to sue without restraint untouched, right? Why? Why not suggest a sensible tort reform that might work better than one being considered? I'll tell you why you don't. Because you want to be free to do anything you wish without restraint. You have what I've seen so many times before, behind walls of prisons. A criminal thought pattern. Sure, it might have advantages, but did somebody forget that it has DISADVANTAGES also? Another brilliant revelation. Careful, don't hurt yourself with all the heavy lifting. The excuses about Big Pharma and other needing to be protected from big law suits sure don't play well after recent revelations that FDA has been operating like a prostitute to the Big Pharma companies. Yep. What do you suggest, short of YOU coming out with a fortune you've defrauded the public of? Why should a doctor who commits truly idiotic malpractice be protected from law suit payouts? I beg your pardon? What in tort reform keeps him or her from being sued? To encourage more of them to leave hemostats or sponges in people's guts during surgery? Again with the sick assumptions. I have never heard anything that would suggest to me a doctor wants to leave operations botched. So they could hardly be encouraged by tort reform. When a doctor does something that dumb, WHY protect them from law suit? You seem to be laboring under the idea that "tort reform" means something it doesn't. It's about caps, not total rejection. Again I say, Oh brother. our society has gotten so far from basic right and wrong that even something this blatantly WRONG can be argued for! Tell us the answer, oh wise one. What shall we do? Bring back lynching and let you clean out the perps pockets before hanging? Instead of governent enlarging itself into areas where government has already proven to be totally incompetent, like the raising of children, perhaps government should get rid of the dead weight, Rube Goldberg style entitlements, circular arguments for itself, and pare down to the few things that really ARE necessary and try to do those well. Boy, talk about "Rube Goldberg." Your one sentence paragraph is a perfect model for the convuluted useless complexity of one of his devices. As it is, the very word government stands for ineptitute, incompetence and deliberate lies. I just love how you folks simply assign values and claims as though they made your claim valid. No proof. Not logical argument. Nothing but babbling. Is that the backbone of our moral fibre? Aren't you glad you have somewhere to spout after you've taken on a load? The model for parenting? Government is not supposed to be a parent. Worthy of second guessing anybody? It's their job. We tell them "second guess" that is to predict and to forsee possible harm, and do things to help avoid the harm. You don't understand government very well, now do you? But that's obvious to anyone that has covered your "career" in government so far, R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R. Kane |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Kane:
In Machiavelli's "The Prince", principles of the survival of a government did NOT prove that proficiency, qualification, capability or cleverness existed in any OTHER ways. Government is almost universally inept, rotten, incapable, corrupt, even imbecilic. Simply surviving does not disprove that. Hitler was a Machiavellian success. The message of Machiavelli was that even a horrible government was better than the damage done by a regime change. Notice that Machivelli himself implied rather negative qualities inherent in government. In a supposedly free society, even bringing up the Machiavellian justification is so extremely UNAMERICAN as to be obscene. The Machiavelli justification is counter to democratic reform and control of the government by the people rather than vice versa. You presume that to understand government is to work inside it and have the bureaucratic agency interest at heart. Shouldn't our government be customer driven? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Greegor wrote: Kane: In Machiavelli's "The Prince", principles of the survival of a government did NOT prove that proficiency, qualification, capability or cleverness existed in any OTHER ways. What has survival got to do with my post? I look for effectiveness. So far, so good, for ours. Government is almost universally inept, rotten, incapable, corrupt, even imbecilic. Yep. And the better it looks usually the worse it is. It's our apparently stumplebum system that is working so much better than most when it comes to individual and collective freedoms. You haven't traveled have you? Simply surviving does not disprove that. Nor did I mention simply surviving as the sole factor to consider. What a government produces for its people is the key. I've seen many other government systems at work. The only one, oddly enough, that I think comes close to ours for effectiveness is also, from the outside and by the ignorant, seen as clumsy. That is the French system of governance today. Geez, what a mess, but a lot of french people enjoy a lot of personal and collective freedom because of that messy system. Not as good as ours, but hey, we are pretty damn good. Hitler was a Machiavellian success. Yep. You didn't see me saying that was the system I admired, did you? In fact I consider you fools more likely to bring on a fascist system than the messy one I support. Do you remember I used to say that Dan was successful precisely because our system, as reflected in CPS workings, was so prone to mistakes? And at the same time I said that you fools are pressing for a system that is more "perfect." It's much harder to misuse the clumsy system we have than the perfection that is fascism's goal. The message of Machiavelli was that even a horrible government was better than the damage done by a regime change. Could you qoute some passages to help me remember that. I seem to have forgotten. Notice that Machivelli himself implied rather negative qualities inherent in government. "Rather?" You are so stupid when you pretend to be educated. In a supposedly free society, even bringing up the Machiavellian justification is so extremely UNAMERICAN as to be obscene. Then why did you? I did not, you'll notice. The Machiavelli justification is counter to democratic reform and control of the government by the people rather than vice versa. YOU claimed my "justification" was Machiavellian. Prove it. You presume that to understand government is to work inside it and have the bureaucratic agency interest at heart. No I don't. I work outside it, always have, and give it hell when it's appropriate. The difference between myself and you twits, the quadsquad, is that I don't lie to criticize it. I know I don't have to. There will always be, as I have said time and again, more than enough error to require a high degree of diligent oversight by the collective population being served. Shouldn't our government be customer driven? It is, dummy. It can't operate though as a pure democracy (what you seem to be saying with "customer driven"). Two reasons: One, that such systems are vulnerable immediately upon their inception to be taken over by strongmen and their thugs. I liken you fools to such a crowd; Two; chaos ensues when everyone "gets their way at once" which is what opens such a system to tyrants with the cunning and strength to usurp the democracy. The sloppy representative democracy is much harder to take over. It's built to protect the both the minority from the majority, and the majority from the minority. Our system even has subsystems for that. Take "caselaw" for instance. Look at how we make our legislators vote on certain parts of legislation. Look at what it takes to ratify the constitution. All calculated to not allow for too easy a takeover of the system by factions..like yours. The nutsos of the world. And the dangerous. Give me slop in government all the time. In fact I'm not liking the more efficient methods I see currently being instigated. But they will fall next election. Such things have been tried in the past. Even today I can refuse, for instance, to allow my SS number to be used to track me, if I wish. I can make anyone asking for it use a number of my own devising for their book and record keeping. I do so. In fact you are communicating with a long time rebel...quasi libertarian, I'd have to call myself. Not quite the extremist I think the died in the wool ones are, but then I've always been hard to pin down, and am not a joiner of any kind. You, on the other hand, are an ignorant fool, eager and ripe for the picking for little demigogs to use you. You demonstrate it here. It's your vicious greed. Your corruption of ethics and morals that make you so. Sad, idnit? Kane |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kane,
More and more countries are concluding that hitting children is indeed violence. Hitting has no place in successfully raising children. There are so many non-violent strategies for discipline that I fail to understand why the US is so committed to the practiced of violent discipline. LaVonne Kane wrote: http://www.expatica.com/source/site_...story_id=16923 http://tinyurl.com/6uvlb " Parents banned from smacking children 14 February 2005 AMSTERDAM - In a proposal that will ban the giving of disciplinary smacks, the Dutch Cabinet has decided to outlaw all forms of violence against children to combat child abuse. Cabinet ministers decided on Friday that parents will in future be explicitly obligated by law to care for their children and to raise them without emotional or physical violence. ....more at the available links..... http://tinyurl.com/6uvlb [[[ Some interesting thinking in this law and it's creation ]]] Breaches of regulations can lead to supervision from welfare authorities or the loss of custody. In more serious cases, culprits can be jailed at the order of a court. In several other European countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Austria - where all forms of violence against children is a criminal offence - evidence is starting to be gathered indicating that the law leads to a reduction in the number of child abuse cases. [Copyright Expatica News 2005] http://tinyurl.com/6uvlb Notice the outcomes.....indications that the law leads to reduction in the number of child abuse cases. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |