Overview of the Swedish Ban on Corporal Punishment

In 1979, Sweden became the first country to ban CP. The decision to do so was led up to by societal factors (see EPOCHNZ and No Spank) and the law had three main objectives outlined by EPOCH:

Objectives

• to alter attitudes towards the use of physical force with children and to shift social pressure so that a good parent is seen as one who does not hit children

• to set a clear guideline for parents and professionals and encourage earlier reporting of physical abuse of children

• earlier identification of problems was expected to lead to earlier intervention

  (EPOCH)

Education

In addition to the passage of the law, the Swedish government launched a huge campaign aimed at educating the public about the law. Aside from media coverage, a 16-page pamphlet was distributed explaining the reasoning behind the law and information on alternative punishments. Every family with a young child received one of these pamphlets. On top that, information was also printed on milk cartons as an effort to get children and parents to discuss the law together. By 1981, two years after the ban became effective, 99% of Swedes knew about the law (Durrant, 1996).

Currently, the public is still learning about the law. Any expectant parents can go to parent education classes and also to child health care centers where the law is covered. It has also been worked into the education system as part of lessons for 9^th graders and in English-language classes (Durrant, 1996). By doing so, children learn directly about the law with the intent of “extending its preventive function“ (Durrant, 1996 Sec. 2.4 para. 2).

Effects

Although limited research has been completed on the effects of the law, it appears as though the positives outweigh the negatives. Positive findings include a decline in public support for CP (now at 11%) and child abuse mortality is low (Durrant, 1996; EPOCH). At risk children are being identified at a greater amount and prosecution rates are stable (showing that parents are not being criminalized as a result) (EPOCH). Finally, child abuse rates have declined (Durrant, 1996). These findings show that the original objectives have been met (EPOCH). It has been speculated that the educational component of the law is responsible for the effects rather than risk of legal penalties (Durrant, 1996).

However, the story is not completely bright. It was found that between 1973-74 and1986-87, the child homicide rate in Sweden nearly doubled. Also, parents in 1981 were not well-equipped with alternative discipline techniques and often resorted to verbal aggression which can have as negative an effect on a child as physical punishment (Lyons & Larzelere, 1996). However, by 1988 parents were better skilled at using an array of techniques (Lyons & Larzelere, 1996; Durrant, 1996).

Conclusion: Is banning CP in the US a good idea?

There remains a serious need for further research to determine if Sweden's CP ban is truly a success story or not. Although the data looks positive, implementing such a ban in the US is not likely to fair as well. Sweden came to the decision based on strong cultural factors including the 1975 case of a father who had badly beaten his three year old daughter but continued to keep custody of her because the courts deemed it to be his right to discipline his daughter how he saw fit (Durrant, 1996). At this moment, the US does not appear to be fully focused on this issue, doubtfully to the point of spending the same amount of resources Sweden did in order to achieve the same results. Along with the lack of cultural influences needed to drive such a ban, CP is still being found to provide beneficial outcomes for certain sub-groups of the US population. To effectively ban the use of CP from every family in America would deprive a number of parents of a non-detrimental technique. With those arguments in mind, it is necessary to see further outcomes from Sweden and other countries who have since banned CP including Cyprus and Italy (Durrant, 1996).