Judge Says Smacking Doesn’t Turn a Parent Into A Criminal

A South Australian Supreme Court judge says that smacking “doesn’t turn a parent into a criminal” after overturning a man’s aggressive assault conviction for smacking his 12-year-old son.

A father, who works as an air force pilot, smacked his son three times in a 2014 incident – once on the bare thigh and twice on his shorts – allegedly as punishment for throwing a tantrum and disrespecting the man and his wife (the boy’s stepmother).

The father claimed he told the boy “if you’re going to act like a four-year-old, I’ll treat you like a four-year-old.”

The man’s ex-wife notified the police, who charged him with assault. He was convicted after a trial, and discharged without further penalty.

On overturning the conviction, Supreme Court Justice David Peek described the original trial as “misdirected” on “the issue of parental correction”.

smacking children — via www.dailymail.co.uk

Justice Peek said in his judgment that the pilot’s slaps which left redness but no bruise, were “not unreasonable” in correcting his child’s misbehaviour.

“The suffering of some temporary pain and discomfort by the child will not transform a parent attempting to correct a child into a person committing a criminal offence,” he said.

“Indeed, the very suffering of temporary emotion may be calculated to impress the child and correct the behaviour, just as much as the accompanying physical discomfort.

“Some level of pain is permissible, and in the present case there was little … the mere existence of red marks caused by the punishment does not prove unreasonable correction.

Justice Peek said that the pilot was “of excellent character and work ethic” who had a “distinguished” military career.

He described the boy’s mother’s parenting style as being “very laissez-faire” while the man was described as “a good, loving father” to his son, who set “firm boundaries” surrounding bedtimes, TV and computer use and chores.

“The pilot gave evidence that he tried to instill self-discipline in his son and values similar to those of the Air Force including respect, dignity and integrity,” Justice Peek said.

“(The boy) would become indignant and stubborn “¦ he did not like being corrected “¦ he was quite adamant that he was in the right and his father was in the wrong.”

The judge noted that the father had previously punished his son using the “time out” method, which he found to be ineffective.

Justice Peek said that while the unreasonable application of force for “malice or revenge” is a criminal act, genuinely disciplining a child of the appropriate age and size for the punishment is not.

“If one can ever safely say something is as old as mankind, that something might be parental correction of children,” he said.

“There has long been a fundamental question as to the extent to which the law should intrude into such areas. While it may be that some children…may be too old for physical parental correction, such an argument does not extend to a 12-year-old boy.”

Justice Peek said that the life-affecting consequences for the father as a result of having an aggravated assault conviction were significant.

Australia has no anti-smacking laws and in South Australia, like many states, parental discipline is allowed in certain circumstances using “reasonable force”.