The Science and Statistics Behind Spanking Suggests that

11-FULLER_FINAL_AFTERPROOF.DOC 2/17/2009 8:50 AM
306 AKRON LAW REVIEW [42:243
Like Dr. Leach, Dr. Straus theorizes that even one spank increases
the risk that a child will experience harmful side effects. 345 But his
studies do not show such an increase. 346 Indeed, they cannot show an
increase because the risk factor analyses he uses only apply “to a
statistical population, not to individuals” like a child. 347 Dr. Straus’ risk
theory, therefore, reflects an exercise in mere possibilities. 348
Laws, however, are supposed to be “statements about the truth of
actual events, not mere probabilities. If that belief is ever lost, a society
based on the rule of law would ultimately collapse into anarchy.” 349
While many spanking researchers claim they are only trying to expose
risk, the effect of their rhetoric is more serious. It affects law at one of
the most sensitive levels of society; it affects the lives and maturation of
children. 350
V. THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE CHILD DEVELOPMENT STUDY
VALIDATES THE BODY OF RESEARCH THAT SUGGESTS SPANKING IS
HARMLESS
In contrast to the inadequate study methods described in Part IV are
the methods of Dr. Diana Baumrind of the University of California,
Berkeley. 351 Dr. Baumrind is best known for identifying and describing
345. See, e.g., STRAUS, supra note 33, at 171 (saying even “a single spanking carries a risk of
harmful side effects . . . .”).
346. See, e.g., Baumrind, Letter, supra note 185 (“But the risk analyses Straus conducts show
no such thing and logically cannot, because they are probabilistic, not categorical.”); LARZELERE,
CRITIQUE, supra note 223 and accompanying text; Larzelere, APA, supra note 17 and
accompanying text.
347. See, e.g., Baumrind, Letter, supra note 185 (“Risk factor analyses apply to a statistical
population, not to individuals. . . . [S]panking is a very weak and statistically unstable risk factor . . .
.”).
348. See, e.g., supra note 241 and accompanying text.
349. See Roger C. Cramton, Furthering Justice by Improving the Adversary System and
Making Lawyers More Accountable, 70 FORDHAM L. REV. 1599, 1607-08 (2002) (quoting
JONATHAN HARR, A CIVIL ACTION 236 (1995)).
350. See, e.g., supra note 298 and accompanying text.
351. Dr. Diana Baumrind “enjoyed a strong intellectual friendship with her father, an atheist
with a strong sense of Jewish cultural tradition . . . .” PARENTHOOD IN AMERICA: AN
ENCYCLOPEDIA 81 (Lawrence Balter ed., 2000). “In her teens, Diana supplemented her personal
education in Marxist philosophy and economics by attending night classes at The Catholic Worker .
. . . ” Id. During that time, she joined the Communist Party and met celebrities like “Pete Seeger
and Paul Robeson, whose left-wing political activism also subjected them to McCarthy-era
investigations.” Id. at 82. “In 1948, Diana earned an A.B. degree in philosophy and psychology at
Hunter College.” Id. Newly married, she began graduate school at the University of California,
Berkeley, where in 1955, she earned her Ph.D. in Psychology (Clinical-Social-Developmental). Id.
“By 1960, Dr. Baumrind affiliated with Berkeley’s Institute of Human Development, where she still