By Dr Emma Watkins, Associate Professor in Criminology
School of Social Policy and Society, University of Birmingham
The topic of corporal punishment evokes passionate responses by those on both sides of the debate. It has always been a contested subject. Historically, the regulations concerning corporal punishment differed according to age, sex and context. Meaning, not only were men, women and children considered differently when it came to physical chastisement, it also differed according to whether it was a judicial (court) order, during confinement (e.g. when in prison), within an educational setting, or within the familial home. Thanks to research within The National Archives, I have been able to explore the contestation and ambivalence that led to these contradictions. I will be giving a talk as part of the Festival of Social Science 2024 which is focused on the physical chastisement of children. While this is an historical criminological piece of research, it still holds importance today because contradictions remain. To explore them, we will be looking at each context in turn.
Judicial
Historically, public corporal punishment was used for misdemeanours for men and women. However, there emerged gendered ideas regarding corporal punishment. Indeed, judicial corporal punishment for male juvenile offenders was not abolished until 1948, but it was abolished for all females in 1820. There were also differing ideas according to age whereby it was increasingly questioned under what circumstances adult men should be whipped. In the mid-19th century, there was a comprehensive codification of the criminal law. At the same time, there was a rising belief that this punishment inflicted an indelible disgrace that hardened the offender. All this resulted in a reduction in offences resulting in corporal punishment, but only for adult males. Corporal punishment of boys actually increased. With it finally being abolished under the Criminal Justice Act in 1948, in the talk we’ll explore why male juveniles were considered suitable for judicial flogging well into the c20th.
Residential
Reformatory Schools were institutions of confinement for offending children between 1854-1933. The Home Office oversaw these institutions and often repeated the narrative that the aim was to reduce the use of corporal punishment within them. As with judicial corporal punishment, there were different ideas according to sex, but this did not result in the abolishment of corporal punishment for girls in the same way. Indeed, for both boys and girls corporal punishment was common. Continuing the narrative, the Children and Young Persons Act (1933) stated every effort should be made to enforce discipline without physical punishment. Said act continued to guide punishment until the 1950s. This section of the talk will consider why practice did not reflect policy. We will also fast forward to today where physical punishment cannot be used as a punishment within confinement institutions for offending children. However, it is used as a means of restraint and control. The Howard League argued that the use of physical force on children was not a thing of the past. The 2024 MoJ policy outlined that restraint techniques can now only be used in emergency scenarios, but they have not abolished it completely.
School
In the 1960s-1970s, the cane was abolished in most primary schools. In 1982 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that beating children against their parent’s wishes in school was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the talk, I will discuss the reasons behind this move, and why it was not predicated simply on humanitarian principles, nor were changes proposed to protect children. The driving factors behind this move also explain why private schools did not ban corporal punishment until as late as 1998 in England and Wales, 2000 in Scotland, and 2003 in Northern Ireland. Indeed, England’s legislation still does not prohibit corporal punishment in unregistered independent settings providing part-time education.
Home
Corporal punishment has been unlawful in the home in Scotland since 2020 and in Wales since 2022. However, England and Northern Ireland both have legislation from 2004 and 2006 respectively, which provides for “reasonable punishment” of children. The government do not consider it a breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yet, the government have condemned other countries where adults have been subject to corporal punishment. The government’s position is that no reform is needed because parents should be allowed to discipline their children, and surveys show that the practice is declining. In 2020 the government declared that it had no plans to ‘interfere in how loving families bring up their children’.
Conclusion
Where corporal punishment has been limited or abolished, it is often not due simply to humanitarian drivers. Come along to the following online event to find out more about the contradictory ideas about who should be subject to corporal punishment, in what context, and how this has changed over time. It’s important to consider this topic today as there still exist contexts in which children are subject to physical chastisement that would constitute assault if the victim was instead an adult stranger. The event is online as part of the Festival of Social Science at the University of Birmingham titled: Corporal punishment through the ages: Spare the rod, spoil the child? on 21 October 17:30-18:30.
-
- Read more about Dr Emma Watkins
- Back to Social Sciences Birmingham
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Birmingham.