The Science and Statistics Behind Spanking Suggests that

11-FULLER_FINAL_AFTERPROOF.DOC 2/17/2009 8:50 AM
2009] THE SCIENCE AND STATISTICS BEHIND SPANKING 253
restrictions become more commonplace, it becomes easier to turn public
opinion against spanking. 39 Ultimately, this ends in a total ban of
physical discipline, even in the home. 40
This counter-majoritarian phenomenon is what led Sweden to
become the first country to completely ban spanking. 41 In 1928, the
Swedish government prohibited physical discipline in secondary schools
through an amendment to the Education Act. 42 In 1957, it removed the
corporal punishment defense from the Penal Code, thus allowing courts
to equate criminal assault with spanking by caregivers. 43 By 1960,
physical discipline was officially abolished in all child care institutions
and reform schools. 44
The government enacted these restrictions with the expectation that
“Swedes would now understand that corporal punishment was no longer
an acceptable practice.” 45 Even so, by 1965, over half the Swedish
population still thought children needed an occasional spanking. 46 The
next year, despite majority support for physical discipline, the
39. See, e.g., id. at 7-8 (reporting that the Swedish government’s increasing restrictions on
corporal punishment were “intended to alter attitudes toward the use of physical force of children.”);
ERICA R. MEINERS, RIGHT TO BE HOSTILE 171 (2007) (“Corporal punishment such as caning or
paddling, even though it is still practiced in private and parochial schools, and is not banned in all
school districts, is a rarity. Yet, the United States and parts of Australia are still among the ‘thirtyfive
industrialized countries who do not ban this disciplinary technique.’ Starting in 1970, by 2005
over half of the states abolished corporal punishment in schools. The disuse of corporal punishment
in schools in the United States has been a slow process transpiring at the local and state levels, and
there is still little consistency, or agreement, on this practice as some districts have banned it, while
the state permits it. Yet, although the practice is still disputed in the United States, public polls
clearly indicate that the majority of parents are not in support of schools possessing the right to
engage in corporal punishment.”) (citations omitted).
40. See, e.g., supra note 37 and accompanying text.
41. See, e.g., DURRANT, supra note 38, at 7 (giving a history of the 1979 spanking ban); 6
kap. 1 para. 2 fûm ôrûm âldrabalken [Swedish Children and Parents Code ch. 6, 1, 2] (Swedish
Ministry of Justice trans.) (Swed.), in PETER NEWELL, CHILDREN ARE PEOPLE TOO: THE CASE
AGAINST PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT 73 (1989) (“The parent or guardian shall exercise necessary
supervision in accordance with the child’s age and other circumstances. The child may not be
subjected to physical punishment or other injurious or humiliating treatment.”); Straus, Corporal
Punishment, supra note 20, at 54 (“The Swedish legislation was initially greeted with derision and
scorn.”).
42. See, e.g., DURRANT, supra note 38, at 7.
43. See, e.g., id.
44. See, e.g., id.
45. See, e.g., id. (after delineating the above restrictions, saying, “It was expected that
Swedes would now understand that corporal punishment was no longer an acceptable practice.”).
46. See supra note 38 and accompanying text.