Children should enjoy the same right to protection from assault as adults do

Jul 10, 2008 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
After reading the two online reports “Thousands of crimes by under-10s,” and “Almost all children aged 10-15 are victims of crime,” as referenced by Mr. Williams in his letter, “New evidence for the retention of corporal punishment in a range of disciplinary measures,” (KN July 9, 2008), I see no mention made in them of corporal punishment at all!

No mention, direct or indirect, is made by the police or child psychologists of either the lack or use of corporal punishment (CP) as a causal contributory or causal main factor in child crimes in the United Kingdom. Certainly the reported increase of incidents of child crimes in the UK is evidence, but evidence of what?

We can correlate, if we wish, this reported increase in child crimes with rising fuel or food prices, or rising ocean levels, or global warming, or rising poverty, or for that matter, anything that rises, and we will find a strong positive correlation between the two variables.

But as anyone who has ever done correlation and causation studies is aware – as I have done even long before I became involved in the CP debate – correlation does not imply causation.

For example, both Mr. Williams’ and my ages would correlate strongly with the local exchange rate for the US dollar over the years, but this does not mean one is the cause of the other.

Another example is the correlation between “race” and IQ and other behaviours which have fooled many learned persons over the years, and still continue to deceive the racists on all sides today.

Both the pro-CP and anti-CP groups rely on correlation studies to buttress their respective cases. The pro-CP ones believe that the lack of CP is usually a main cause of child misbehaviour, etc., whereas the anti-CP ones believe that the use of CP is a cause (ranging from mildly contributory to main) of child misbehaviours, etc.

The trouble with correlation studies in the social sciences (and this is a social science issue) is that it is notoriously difficult to establish causation.

The objects and events dealt with in the social sciences are not inanimate solids, liquids and gases which stay put or behave according to well-established physical laws when you experiment with them, but they are complex human beings and their accompanying behaviours do not follow precise physical principles.

One correlation study may show that as the use of CP drops, child misbehaviour rises; another study may show quite the reverse. Others may show that child misbehaviour is high where CP is used; another may show the reverse.

A significant factor that affects studies in this area is study bias. This is a common phenomenon found in behavioural and social sciences researches in which the researchers have a bias in favour of a certain position.

When they evaluate human behaviour they do so through the lenses of their bias. Many studies of the effects of CP have proved to be questionable because they are mostly based on the researchers’ biased interpretation of children’s behaviour.

Those undertaken by pro-CP advocates inevitably show that CP is safe, effective, and has no long-term harmful effects. Fundamentalist religious groups and other pro-CP advocates tend to quote these types of study.

Research undertaken by anti-CP advocates show the opposite: corporal punishment is unsafe, ineffective and can have negative permanent effects. Moderate religious groups and other anti-CP advocates quote these researches.

Generally speaking, those who were reared by mild to severe corporal punishment, which may have been justified by pre-Christian Hebrew writings, tend to be pro-CP advocates or researchers.

On the other hand, those trained with little or no corporal punishment, with or without gentler New Testament teachings, generally are anti-CP advocates or researchers.

However, the anti-CP advocates and researchers stand on more solid grounds since they have little or no conditioned religious bias in favour of corporal punishment, while the conditioned religious bias of the pro-CP advocates and researchers invoke a powerful impetus that skews their advocacy and studies in the inevitable direction.

So far, no psychologist has been able to establish all the factors that contribute to child and adult misbehaviour and crime; all they have are general behavioural principles which from time to time are contradicted by people all over the world.

Bearing in mind the complex nature of the human being, they might never be able to do so in a total manner. For instance we certainly know that if a person takes water in his lungs he will die.
But we don’t know with 100% certainty how a person will behave if we treat him one way and not another.

Generally speaking, if we treat him well, he responds in kind; and if we don’t, he responds in the manner of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But, of course, he can be conditioned to turn the other cheek.

Another general principle humans hold is that we don’t beat people whom we love or respect (spouses and other adults). Most people know that it is inappropriate to express love, whether brotherly love or sensual love or corrective love (discipline) by beating the loved or respected one or the adult offender.

My contention is that the same right ought to be recognised for children. They should enjoy the same right to protection from assault that adults enjoy.

Then we should consider the possibility of there being an increase in reports of child crimes rather than an absolute increase in child crimes or possibly even an increase due to immigrants whose child-rearing practices might be different (more abusive) from native households.

There could be so many other factors – social, cultural, economic, physical, etc. – that could be responsible for the reported increase in violence among children (and adults, too).

Most Guyanese teachers know that misbehaviour increases with ambient temperature and overcrowding. Should we cool down the kids with a whip?

A few years ago, one of our newspapers carried a report of a study that linked the intake of lead (Pb) with child violence.

Research carried out in neuroscience suggests that the interference of electromagnetic radiation from electrical devices on the human brain (which is basically a bio-electro-magnetic-chemical device) could have positive or negative effects on behaviour.

What is certain though is that all of us are immersed in a sea of human-made electromagnetism that our ancestors never had to contend with years ago.

Studies in acoustics have shown that there are many acoustical phenomena (including music) that can and do profoundly influence human behaviour either positively or negatively.

There are so many factors that can induce violence (and peace, too) in humans and their children.
One thing I strongly believe is that laws on human rights and child rights are based on the principle of non-violence and “first of all, do no harm.”

If we measure success by rates of reported violence and homicide, then the laws prohibiting assault of adults and murder have apparently failed.

But we would never consider removing this legal protection just because the laws “haven’t worked.” (Like Mr. Williams’ belief that the law against CP “hasn’t worked” in the UK or Sweden.)

These protective laws are based on principle. This is the basis of laws prohibiting corporal punishment in the 24 countries that have totally abolished it and in the 103 countries that have banned it in schools.

It is inappropriate and unsafe to express love of any form by hitting of any kind. Sweden is said to be a country that has no news.

From looking at recent events in Guyana, I wish we were such a country. Then, perhaps, we could get on with some real work.
M. Xiu Quan-
Balgobind-Hackett

---

---