In February of 2001, when Kamla Persad-Bissessar held the portfolio of Education Minister in the then Basdeo Panday administration, she piloted legislation that led to a ban on corporal punishment in schools.
Back then, as is still the case now, there were strong views on either side of that issue. To this day, some argue that the ban has negatively affected the discipline of students to the extent that violence in schools is now a major problem.
The practice hasn’t been completely eradicated from the country, however, as the ban on corporal punishment does not extend to the home. Article 4 of the Children Act 2012 underscores the right to administer “reasonable punishment” to children under the age of 16, allowing parents and guardians the right to use force to cause physical pain, but not injury, as a method of correcting or controlling a child’s behaviour.
It is unlikely that anything has changed since a 2010 UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) report that showed that high percentages of T&T children—as high as 77 per cent— experience corporal punishment in the home.
But there are solid reasons for a wider ban on corporal punishment of children to be considered, particularly because of the many cases where children have died or suffered serious injury because of the severity of the physical punishment inflicted on them.
Also, as this nation continues to grapple with the high proportion of violent crimes committed by children, there should be an honest assessment of whether corporal punishment contributes to this problem.
Psychologists and psychiatrists have warned about the long-term mental effects of corporal punishment. Research has identified a variety of negative effects, including physical injury, mental defects and aggression, that continue into adulthood. On the other hand, there are very few studies that support the use of corporal punishment to achieve positive discipline
A thorough understanding of whether and how corporal punishment affects children has not been reached and discussions of “how much licks is too much” expose differing beliefs and assumptions on the learning and development of children, as well as the nature of discipline and methods to achieve it.
T&T is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which calls for protection from corporal punishment by all persons and the repeal of all defences, including those allowing “reasonable punishment.”
The convention calls for the introduction of laws that clearly state that no type of corporal punishment is acceptable or lawful, including by parents in the home. This includes the prohibition of corporal punishment in all settings and by all persons with authority over children.
This is bound to be a hard sell here because of widespread social acceptance of corporal punishment. Although citizens express shock and horror when a child dies from a severe beating, few are willing to consider how thin the line is between physical forms of punishment and abuse.
The path to any legal reforms that prohibit corporal punishment will be rocky unless preceded by public education campaigns to promote positive, non-violent forms of discipline. But it will be worth the effort if it results in a healthier and safer environment for T&T’s children.