Whilst physical violence is obviously not a means of gaining respect from a child, I simply do not believe that these are the sort of domestic activities a government should be concerning themselves with. It seems somewhat oxymoronic, Orwellian even to, on one hand, remove a means of discipline from the parent and on the other hand, create new means by which the government may control and discipline the child (looking mainly at the introduction of ASBO's under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.you sould be aloud to do what you prefare to do with your child you cant be told what to do by someone else

It is the duty of society as a whole to protect its most vulnerable members from harm. If an adult hits another adult it is considered assault, a crime, and thus falls under the remit of the law. Why then should a full grown adult hitting a small child be considred a 'domestic activity' and not be punishable?

No child likes to be punished, but in the long term the use of appropriate punishments such as smacking creates a generation of disciplined children. These children face less threat of violence or other criminal activity from their peers; less bullying, teenage muggings, or incidents such as the recent spate of teenage knife crime. A well disciplined child contributes to his society rather than endangering it.

Children may not always feel safe out in the world, because the reality is it is a dangerous place. So-called 'old fashioned discipline' is not going to change that. Children who have been exposed to violence at a young age and taught that it is an acceptable means to influence others are surely more likely to use it against their peers.

The one place that children should feel safe is in their own homes; homes that are free from physical violence.

As has been argued above, smacking (when clearly just that, and not physical abuse) does not leave marks. It does not usually render the child psychologically damaged to the effect that it can be noticed. If it were an illegal practise, parents would be unlikely to admit to doing it. Even today, parents would be sheepish to mention they use this particular form of discipline, given all the hysteria surrounding the issue.

So, when a child says "Mummy smacked me", how can it be verified, for it to then be prosecuted? Children routinely lie. They see no harm in it, but may see a benefit. For example, a child of around age seven would grasp the concept very quickly that Mummy and Daddy would have to be very, very nice if they were reported as being bad parents, and they might subsequently lie about being smacked, in order to get sweets or attention from their parents. Whilst I am not arguing that children are inherently evil, it is important to simultaneously treat their behaviour with healthy cynicism.

So, were legislation to be introduced against smacking, it would be very hard to enforce. There would also be the aspect of severity. If a mother hits her child's hand forcefully in order to prevent him reaching and touching a hot stove, is this smacking? Parents inevitably have to physically restrain children sometimes, for their own safety. To not do so would be neglect.

With this in mind, would it be worth the government's while to set up such legislation, bear the public outcry, spend tax money on advertising and awareness campaigns, only for the prosecution levels to be minimal, for a crime that seems to have never caused severe psychological or physical damage in the first place?

Teaches respect

Children are people. People do not earn each others respect with a smack. A smack from someone three times as big as you is terrifying. Being terrified is not a good source for education.

3 year olds are uncouscious of a smack they don`t understand what has happened.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can distinguish between a smack and the kind of physical harm that constitutes child abuse. Disciplinary smacking does not leave a mark and would never result in hospitalisation, which is how many incidences of genuine abuse come to light.

As the No point brings up, it is a very gray area between smacking and beating, so I ask: what is it that the government would do to change this since it has been brought up as a legal issue. What is the standard for child abuse? If it is to be believed that every gray area in the issue ought to be removed, then are parents forbidden to touch their children? Is an overly-enthusiastic hug that leaves the child out of breath considered child abuse? The government should remain out of the private lives of families without an intelligible belief that the child's life is in danger. All in all, there is a difference between a light smack to reprimand a child for a negative action and abuse that could endanger the life of the child and the government should respect that difference.

If parents are legally allowed to physically reprimand their children, where do we draw the line between an appropriate punishment and excessive force? If a parent slaps a child and they fall and incur a serious injury, is the parent still to be considered within their rights? Child abuse is a difficult enough problem to tackle without allowing these legal grey areas.

Smacking has been an accepted punishment for children for hundreds of years. It is only with the rise of these new ideas that we have seen a sharp decline in discipline and, as a result, rising rates of crime and social problems. Smacking is simply a more effective deterrent than softer punishments. In schools, children used to behave because they feared a caning; our modern 'detentions' are little more than a homework club and children do not think twice about incurring such a punishment.

It is narrow minded to claim that smacking is the only way to reinforce moral values in children. Far better methods involve systems of reward and punishment that deprive children of their favourite treats, such as time with their games console. 'Supernanny' Jo Frost has popularised the idea of the 'naughty step' as a means of punishing young children. These methods teach children to take responsibility for their own actions, not just to fear the threat of a smack. In practice, smacking often only results in a child become distressed and hysterical; they may even lash out and try to hit the parent back. This is clearly not the best way to put a stop to bad behaviour.

Children who are smaked regually by their parents are likely to be anti social and grow up to become criminals. Children who are anti social are more likely to run into trouble with the law lie often and pick fights at school.