Childhood abuse linked to criminal behaviour

THE EDITOR: If the press report is correct, Prof Ramesh Deosaran is in dreamland in suggesting “that the Ministry review the policy on corporal punishment in view of teacher and parent concerns.” It is astonishing that a criminologist should be unaware of the criminological and psychological research connecting childhood abuse (for that is what corporal punishment is) to criminal bahaviour. It is simply astounding how often childhood physical/sexual abuse crops up in the lives of murders and rapists (all heterosexual, by the way).

As the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children sad in 1998: “We believe that eliminating violent and humiliating forms of discipline is a vital strategy for improving children’s status as people, and reducing child abuse and all other forms of violence in European societies.” Corporal punishment has already been banned in several states in the US and in several school districts. Its elimination from all schools is supported by the US National Mental Health Association which points out that scientific research has concluded that the effects of corporal punishment are detrimental to the emotional and educational needs of children. While corporal punishment is still possible in Canadian schools, it is practically absent from them.

Hit a child or student and you face a criminal charge of assault as well as a lawsuit. Some reported effects of corporal punishment are loss of self-esteem, increased anxiety and fear, feelings of helplessness and humiliation, stifled relationships with others, aggressive and self-destructive behaviour and limited attention span, all of which may lead to deficient academic performance and subsequent indiscipline and/or violence. Non-corporal punishment such as ridicule, name-calling and destructive criticism also have similar psychological effects. Is this what we want in our schools and in TT? Those who freak out and give licks to children do so to satisfy their anger, not to effect change in behaviour. It testifies to an ignorance of alternative and rational strategies for producing behavioural change, and reflects a socialisation in which licks played a leading part.  “Beat him every day, an’ he sure to learn!” Learn what?

There are many effective means of discipline which promote self-control and the development of appropriate socially adaptive behaviours in constructive, non-harmful ways. Show respect for the rights of the child, explain, listen, discuss, be rational, be fair, be consistent, be empathic. Give licks to a child and be sure that he will later take it out on others. Might it be the absence of constructive methods of discipline which might be a cause of the school indiscipline which is causing so much current concern? The government should realise that they are there to lead, innovate, and inspire, not simply to adhere to traditional and ineffective practices.

KENNETH AQUAN-ASSEE
Port-of-Spain