The six papers in this special issue provide a context for understanding the rationale for law reform to fully protect children from corporal punishment. As a Pathfinding Country for the UN Global Partnership to End Violence against Children, Canada has an obligation to remove Section 43 of the Criminal Code, the defence that “justifies” corporal punishment of children. As fellow nations influenced by the English common law underlying that defence, Ireland, Scotland and Wales provide models for Canada. They demonstrate that the arguments that commonly derail repeal in Canada can be overcome.

Rooted in Canada’s history as a British colony, the Criminal Code defence to “reasonable corrective force” remains in force today. In this article, I trace the history of Canada’s law, describe various attempts made to remove it, and present the many recommendations and calls for repeal issued over recent decades. While Canada has stood still, 65 countries have removed their legal defences and prohibited all corporal punishment of children. At this time, Canada has another opportunity to finally remove this archaic defence, as two Private Members’ Bills have been introduced in the House of Commons and the Senate, respectively. By seizing this opportunity, Canada will demonstrate its commitments to children’s rights to protection and dignity, and uphold its pledges to end violence against children and women in Canada.

Abstract Background Research consistently demonstrates that physical punishment of children including “spanking” is harmful. Interest in effective prevention is growing rapidly. The aim of the current study is to examine spanking beliefs among adolescents and parents in relation to reports of spanking that the adolescents experienced before 11 years of age. Methods Data were drawn from Wave 1 of a study conducted in 2017–2018 that included adolescents (14–17 years old) and one of their parents/caregivers from Manitoba, Canada (n = 1000 pairs). The study objectives were to examine: 1) spanking beliefs of adolescents and their parents; 2) the correlation between parent and adolescent spanking beliefs; 3) whether parents perceive the words “spank” vs. “hit” differently using intraclass correlation; 4) the association between parents’ beliefs about spanking and parent- and adolescent-reported use of it; and 5) the relationship between sociodemographic variables and spanking. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Spearman’s correlation, intraclass correlation, and binary and multinomial logistic regression analyses. Results The prevalence of adolescent-reported and parents’-reported spanking were 46.0% and 39.6%, respectively. The proportions agreeing that spanking is a normal part of parenting were similar among adolescents (22.0%) and parents (18.5%), and were moderately correlated (intraclass correlation = 0.38, SE = 0.038). More than five times as many parents believed that “spanking” is necessary (19.5%) than believed that “hitting” is necessary (3.5%). Parents’ positive spanking beliefs were associated with increased likelihood of adolescent- and parent-reported spanking. Few significant associations were found between sociodemographic variables and parent-reported or adolescent-reported spanking. Conclusions Adolescents’ spanking beliefs are related to their parents’ spanking beliefs, suggesting that they are transmitted across generations. Public education and law reform are needed to decrease the normalization and perceived necessity of spanking in child-rearing. Efforts should include improving the understanding that spanking is a form of violence against children. With only a few significant differences noted between sociodemographic variables and parent- and adolescent- reported spanking and the prevalent use of spanking across all sociodemographic variable categories, it may be useful to develop universal approaches to awareness-raising and implementation of education strategies in Canada.

Physical punishment is increasingly viewed as a form of violence that harms children. This narrative review summarises the findings of 69 prospective longitudinal studies to inform practitioners and policy makers about physical punishment's outcomes. Our review identified seven key themes. First, physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems over time. Second, physical punishment is not associated with positive outcomes over time. Third, physical punishment increases the risk of involvement with child protective services. Fourth, the only evidence of children eliciting physical punishment is for externalising behaviour. Fifth, physical punishment predicts worsening behaviour over time in quasi-experimental studies. Sixth, associations between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics. Finally, there is some evidence of a dose-response relationship. The consistency of these findings indicates that physical punishment is harmful to children and that policy remedies are warranted.

Research has consistently found relationships between physical punishment in childhood and mental healthy problems throughout the life course, including anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, alcoholism, substance abuse, and suicidal tendency. In this paper, we apply Eriksonian theory to examine the mechanisms whereby physical punishment may have its impacts. We explore development from birth to adolescence, considering the psychosocial crisis faced in each stage and the role physical punishment may play in disrupting their successful resolution. We integrate research findings to provide an empirical foundation for our arguments.

Physical and emotional punishment of children is highly prevalent in the Asia-Pacific region. These actions predict a range of physical and emotional harms, prompting a worldwide effort to eliminate them. A key strategy in this effort is to change parental beliefs regarding the acceptability of physical and emotional punishment. The Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting (PDEP) program was designed to change those beliefs by teaching parents about child development and strengthening their problem-solving skills. A sample of 377 parents in the Asia-Pacific region completed the program: 329 mothers and 47 fathers of children ranging in age from infancy to adolescence. The parents lived in Australia ( n = 135), Japan ( n = 172) or the Philippines ( n = 70). In all three countries, parents’ approval of punishment in general, and physical punishment specifically, declined and they became less likely to attribute typical child behavior to intentional misbehavior. By the end of the program, at least 75% of parents in each country felt better prepared to respond nonviolently to conflict with their children.

Physical punishment of children is linked to negative developmental outcomes. The widely used Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) promotes alternative responses to physical punishment. Data on the effectiveness of the Triple P Seminar Series is limited. In this study, Canadian parents' reports of physical punishment, non-physical punishment, and non-punitive responses were compared before and after they attended the Triple P Seminar Series. Twenty-seven parents of children aged 2 to 6 years attended the Seminar Series and completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires measuring the number of times they used various physical punishments, non-physical punishments, and non-punitive responses in the past month. Hypotheses were tested using univariate descriptive analyses, paired samples t tests, and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. Parents' reports of physical punishment decreased on only one of the four physical punishment items (shaking/grabbing) from pre- to post-intervention. Over the course of the Seminar Series, parents became more likely to emphasise rules and to punish their children by taking things away from them. The findings suggest that the Seminar Series has limited effectiveness in reducing physical punishments or increasing non-punitive responses. Further research on this question is needed.

Debates over corporal punishment’s effectiveness have come to an end. No study has shown it to have long-term benefits, while many have demonstrated its substantial and wide-ranging risks. Today, the primary focus is on ending it. The increasing recognition of children as rights-bearers is leading an ever-growing number of countries to legally prohibit corporal punishment of children. These laws are intended to foster recognition of children’s rights to protection from all violence, reduce approval and use of corporal punishment, and lower the threshold for tolerance of violence against children. Population-level data from Sweden, Germany, and New Zealand indicate that these changes are taking place. Additional research suggests that a combination of prohibition and large-scale public education is the most effective route to ending the corporal punishment of children.

For centuries, some level of physical violence against children has been normalized, prescribed and legally justified. It has long been argued that violence is not abusive if it is intended as punishment and does not injure the child physically. This proposition has heavily influenced our language, research methods and approaches to intervention with the effect of perpetuating the belief that some level of violence is justifiable and acceptable in children's lives. The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child precipitated a global recognition that the justification of punitive violence violates children's fundamental protection rights. Yet, in the research literature, terminology, methods and approaches often minimize acts of violence if they are intended as punishment. This article summarizes progress made over the past 30 years and issues a call for transformative change in our conceptualizations of punitive violence.