The Moratorium on Corporal Punishment Is a Justifiable Theorem for Child Behavioral and Psychological Development. An Anthropological Study: Based on Society and Culture in Bangladesh


Positive parenting through physical disciplinary strategy somehow constructs many negative consequences in children’s society. Touching on the frequent questionable aspects of Corporal punishment (CP) is defined as a kind of bodily punishment given by the parent according to a prominent scholar. Tracing the issues of children’s corporal punishment constructed on the culture of different people in different places is to see the true scenario of CP. The global commons are on Corporal punishment tags with their own cultures where some people’s satisfaction denotes the children suffering through beating and snapping. The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) focused on the effects of corporal punishment which are then examined in light of learning theory, socialization theory, and the child’s perspective. The chronological development of the guiding principle of international instruments is directed with directives against Corporal punishment and there our local legislation still has not marched enough though measures are taken. In 2011 a circular was published by the Ministry of Education in Bangladesh for banning corporal punishment in all educational settings. Based on Policy Deviation to integrate international institutional norms with local legislation to teach their children at home and school we observe the recent scenario. A total of 70,027 children between the ages of 1 and 14 were included in the Bangladesh Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS, 2019), which found that 88.8% of the children had experienced physical punishment and/or psychological aggression by caregivers in the previous month, 30.2% had experienced severe physical punishment, and only 6.4% had only encountered non-violent discipline. 35% of the 53,772 moms and caregivers who replied to a question about child discipline indicated that they thought a child should be physically disciplined (Report of UNICEF Bangladesh and the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), 2019; Bangladesh, Survey Findings Report, 2019, ProgotirPathey). A Bangladesh national report carried out as part of the Children’s World Report 2020 into child well-being in 35 countries explored the situation of children in three cities in Bangladesh: Barishal, 8 Rajshahi, and Moulvibazar. A total of 3,090 children in 327 primary schools and 117 secondary schools participated (Goswami, Ibrahim Khalil, & Banik, 2018, Children’s Worlds National Report Bangladesh). The survey concluded that corporal punishment of children appears to be rooted in Bangladesh culture and is still used in classrooms and other settings of children’s lives. Some parents still believe disciplining children with corporal punishment has some positive outcomes. They believe punishing children is an integral part of rectifying their missbehavior at their parents’ house and while schooling teachers’ sensitivity is associated with some kinds of punishment for better results in prospects. The outcome of quantitative research in 1980-1990 in the context of CP seems to have some positive consequences to some extent but nowadays numerous researches suggest that CP creates serious negative consequences and the majority of parents in different societies have already banned this strategy based on the evidence of numerous negative effects such as Causing conflict between parents and children, making children aggressive behavior, having mental health problems in childhood, and when they become adults they do the same to their children a way of intergenerational transmission of physical punishment. Based on the evidence of empirical research it suggested banning the approach of corporal punishment from all societies. The purpose of the article is to demonstrate qualitative research methods to prove the adverse effects of CP are concerned with children’s psychological development and the consequence of positive parenting in Bangladesh to make a stronger social construction as a global theory to Ban Corporal Punishment.

Share and Cite:

Azad, M. and Sunny, M. (2023) The Moratorium on Corporal Punishment Is a Justifiable Theorem for Child Behavioral and Psychological Development. An Anthropological Study: Based on Society and Culture in Bangladesh. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 11, 441-470. doi: 10.4236/jss.2023.118031.

1. Background of the Study

Bygone decades Bangladesh has taken many legal imitations to maintain the globally prescribed guidelines which may be spasmodic and jerky. Pertaining Physical and other sorts of discipline stay common in Bangladesh, despite overpowering proof of their hurt and around the world endeavors to diminish their utilization. One of the key needs of Spare the Children in Bangladesh’s Child Security Program is to secure children from physical and mortifying discipline in homes, schools, and other settings. Spare the Children in Bangladesh, has chosen the Positive Teach in Ordinary Child Rearing (PDEP) Program to supply guardians with choices for physical discipline that comply with human rights measures while fortifying connections and understanding of child advancement. The sense and experience of corporal punishment (CP) vary based on the culture of individual states where one of the most common delineations of Corporal punishment in simple view is that CP is the use of physical force with a view for a child to feel pain but not to injure. As it is widely understood, corporal punishment is a type of physical punishment or force used to discipline, correct, control, and change conduct, as well as in the hopes of learning or nurturing the kid (Save the Children Alliance, 2003: p. 1) . In extend the form of CP description, Rohner & Steely (2005) physical punishment is the use of direct or indirect infliction of physical discomfort or pain on a child by a person in a position of authority over the child (e.g. parent) usually to stop a child’s unwanted behavior, preventing the reoccurrence of unwanted behavior, or because the child failed to do something s/he was supposed to do. Corporal punishment includes modest spanking to severe beating. It takes place at home, in care homes, schools, and institutions, on the streets, and at workplaces. For many decades global society has been facing some challenges in child development concerns where corporal punishments (CP) create multiple problems in behavioral and psychological aspects. Based on previous research there is a piece of evidence that 192 countries have been ratified already and 65 countries banned the strategy as justifiable means because of the many negative effects of corporal punishment on children’s society. And as we can see in Figure 1 that is how it has been going in the current situation. Corporal punishment indeed varies on different cultural

Figure 1. Global status of prohibiting corporal punishment.

attitudes and it is giving numerous type of user experience for the wellbeing of children in society but turn into a crisis of the different variables in the characteristic of parents and cultural impetus.

The present global status of prohibiting CP as a Banned strategy and some other countries is in this Que. At present 65 states have fully banned the CP and 27 countries have committed to completing the legal ban on CP.

Discoursing the exercise of Corporal punishment the chronological development of the guiding principle of international instruments against Corporal punishment through generating numerous acts, and conventions. Tracing that firstly The League of Nations adopted the Geneva Declaration, commonly known as the Declaration of the Children’s Rights, in 1924 to support the rights of children. Section 37 of the UN charter states that no child shall be subjected to torture or other inhuman treatment. In addition to the violation of the rights of the children in DRC principles, an expanded version of the proclamation was ratified in November 1959. It said that children must be protected from all forms of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Periodical development of preventing CP is ongoing in different countries due to global society is highly concerned about the use of corporal punishment and its effects due to the lack of implementation of legislation regarding Corporal punishment (CP) till passing a far way to march with global directives due to the integration gap in the legal framework at both national and international levels. Respecting the rights of the child contained in the UDHR gave the convention on the rights of the child in 1989. In the realm of corporal punishment the premedical work of a UNICEF study titled “Corporal Punishment through Informal Interviews with Children about Corporal Punishment at School and Home” (UNICEF, 1999: p. 1) , teachers sometimes hit students with a cane, pull their ears, or make them put their hands under the table, squeeze their hands, or make them stand on a bench while holding their ears.

Proportionate users of CP By contrast to urban and rural the cultural anthropologist observed that Bangladeshi society still frequently uses them although these sanctions are bad for students’ physical and mental health. In continuation at the meeting of the South Asia Forum in July 2006, following the 2005 regional consultation on the United Nations Secretary-General’s study on violence against children, the government pledged to ban the practice in all areas and places, including at home. In its written response to the 2009 Committee on the Rights of the Child questions, the Government identified “the protection of children from corporal punishment at home, in schools and institutions” as a priority top first. In 2010, government officials at the South Asia Initiative to End Violence against Children (SAIEVAC) developed a national action plan to achieve prohibition and approved a report on progress in banning corporal punishment in South Asian countries, including an analysis of the reforms needed in Bangladesh. The Ministry of Women and Children participates in SAIEVAC’s activities aimed at corporal punishment is prohibited under all circumstances. Then an act was developed called the “Shishu Act” (CA 2013) in Bangladesh that derived from the children act 1974 but a vast interpretation of the definition of Corporal punishment is indicated thoroughly as it was not incorporated in CA 2013. Focused prevention of the wrongdoings of the children in CRC is mentioned in Article 19 directly for particular attention to prohibits all forms of violence against children by legislative term and their others the number of the act is also connoted in CRC in articles 33, 34, 35, 36 in regards to offenses related to children’s. Linking the international human rights law and relevant articles of the legal system of Bangladeshis domestic law is a complex domain in the context of a dualistic country like Bangladesh to maintain the moral constitution of corporal punishment (CP) as well as related treaty applications due to lack of uniform implementation of the regulation.

Emphasis on children’s rights concern one of the most observation screened that Corporal punishment violates the human self-esteem and physical integrity of children and is a flagrant violation of children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Figure 2 shows a UNICEF study in this regard. About four-fifths of children between the ages of 2 and 14 experience some form of violent discipline at home (Hidden Obvious: A statistical analysis of Violence against Children UNICEF, 2014 ). Another report screened that beating and humiliation of children is continued by teachers and in addition

Figure 2. UNICEF study, 2014 violence against children by physical punishment age 1 - 14 (A statistical analysis).

at home by parents according to the 2019 Multi-Indicator Cluster Survey by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF, 89% of children (1 - 14 years old) in Bangladesh had experienced violent discipline in the month before the survey. A special voice was raised on an international day 30 April as an opportunity to support all child victims to end corporal punishment and call for better and faster protection of children’s rights as human rights. Our government of Bangladesh is committed to ending corporal punishment by 2030 but corporal punishment endures to stain billions of children’s lives worldwide. Accordingly, Bangladesh, being a signatory to the UN Tradition on the Rights of the Child, with the point to control child mishandling and corrupting treatment towards children, this Act criminalizes all shapes of corporal discipline forced on children. It assists and gives the greatest discipline of five a long time of detainment and/or fine that will amplify up to Taka 1 lac. The lawful definition of children has to been changed from an individual being beneath the age of 14 to 18 a long time ancient. It was a praise-worthy administrative exertion to guarantee that no child is subjected to torment and brutal or debasing treatment. (

However, enactment fizzled to annihilate corporal disciplines at household and organizational levels. Ostensibly, culprits may still elude, the obligation for apportioning corporal disciplines at domestic, elective care settings, childcare, remedial education, etc. Article 89 of the Corrective Code 1860 gives a defense to the gatekeeper or individual having a legal specialist for hurting children beneath the age of 12 for the child’s possess advantage, when done so either in great confidence, by assent, or when having an unsound intellect. This guard strengthens the thoughts behind advocating corporal disciplines. Unavoidably, it creates a conflicting lawful position, between, the statutes, constraining the advancement additionally making disarray inside the law. The Preeminent Court of Bangladesh has attempted to bring clarity to this matter. Their lordships in Summons Appeal No. 5684 of 2010 held that apportioning corporal disciplines at domestic, schools, and teachers are to be made illegal and advance expressed that Article 89 of the Correctional Code 1860 is as it were pertinent to restorative activities on children and not to corporal disciplines in common.

2. Objectives of the Study

The aspects of the topic purpose to focus on in my research on the consequences of corporal punishment, parenting, and its derivatives. And Different cultures’ attitudes towards CP in Bangladesh in comparison to the global Context. Emphasis on the Evidence of research that shows the true outcomes of CP. (Comparison through data/experience) As well as other factors of parenting e.g. ages and stage, common issues parents and educators are facing. CP use also depends on the type of misbehavior of the child (Catron & Masters, 1993; Socolar & Stein, 1995) . Parents report they are more likely to spank for sensible transgressions or when the misbehavior results in a threat to the child’s safety (e.g., running into a busy street, lighting matches) as compared to moral transgressions, which include violating others rights e.g., stealing, hitting a friend or sibling. Fewer parents approve of using CP for violating social norms or family rules e.g., disobeying a parent, eating with fingers, or interrupting a parent on the phone (Gershoff et al., 1999) . Along with the type of misbehavior, parents’ use of CP also depends upon their own experiences with being spanked or hit as a child.

One study of “ Beliefs and ideologies linked with approval of corporal punishment: a content analysis of online comments” abuse (Taylor, Al-Hiyari, Lee, Priebe, Guerrero, & Bales, 2015) Department of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA and 2 Research Center for Group Dynamics, School of Social Work )their think about utilizes a novel methodology for recognizing focuses of resistance to instruction endeavors pointed at lessening rates of child physical manhandle and utilize of corporal discipline (CP). They analyzed online comments (n¼581) produced in response to the media scope of a ponder connecting CP with expanded child hostility. Most comments (71%) reflected endorsement of hitting children for disciplinary purposes. Reasons for this endorsement were established in convictions connecting the use of CP with positive or impartial results such as: “I was punished and I am okay, Punishing makes strides in child behavior, and beating is more successful than other shapes of teaching and punishing. In a lion’s share of nations, more than 2 in 3 children are subjected to rough teaching by caregivers rough teaching at domestic is the foremost common shape of savagery experienced by children. Whereas instructing children on self-control and worthy behavior is a necessary portion of child-raising in all societies, numerous caregivers depend on the utilization of rough strategies, both physical and mental, to rebuff undesirable behaviors and energize craved ones. In any case of the sort, all shapes are an infringement of children’s rights. Caregivers don’t fundamentally utilize savage teaching with the think purposeful of causing hurt or damage to the child. Or maybe, it some of the time stems from outrage and disappointment, the need to understand the hurt it can cause, or a restricted nature with non-violent strategies. Whereas children of all ages are at hazard, encountering savage teach at a youthful age can be especially hurtful, given the expanded potential for physical wounds as well as children’s failure to get the inspiration behind the act or to receive adapting methodologies to reduce their trouble. Rate of children aged 1 to 14 a long time who experienced any violent discipline (mental animosity and/or physical discipline) within the past month, in nations and regions with accessible information (UNICEF global databases, 2023, based on Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), and other national surveys, 2006-2022).

Parents who spank more frequently are likely to believe that spanking will result in more positive outcomes such as child compliance and respect for parents (Holden, Miller, & Harris, 1999; Taylor, Hamvas, & Paris, 2011) . Attitudes toward CP are a good construct to target for change because they are highly correlated with daily reports of spanking (Xing et al., 2019) as well as predictive of subsequent spanking behavior. Additionally, these attitudes are relatively stable across time, as Vittrup, Holden, and Buck (2006) found in a 3½ year longitudinal study of disciplinary practices. In turn, specific attitudes e.g., spanking attitude, are a major determinant of behavioral intention, which in turn is the best predictor of behavior (Webb & Sheeran, 2006) . Parents’ intention behind most CP indeed is to promote good behavior and not to harm the child (Holden et al., 2014) , the main reason for Corporal punishment is to control a child’s misbehavior. Numerous parents and teachers still believe that CP is the best method for disciplinary context to rectify their disobedience and rudeness but this practice varies on the cultural aspect of different people in different places. Many parent education programs have successfully targeted and changed attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors concerning using corporal punishment (Voisine & Baker, 2012; Wagner, Spiker, & Linn, 2002) .

Positive parenting through physical disciplinary strategy is constructing many negative consequences in children’s society. Such as developing a conflict in interpersonal relationships between parents and children, negative emotional and behavioral problems, and serious psychological disorders in childhood. In this context, proponents (Holden, Miller, & Harris, 1999) stated that corporal punishment was not positively associated with the internalization of positive conduct, as many parents say. For Example, 75% of adults believe that a “good hard spanking” is an appropriate and sometimes necessary disciplinary practice Child Trends, 2009. Although there are many types of determinants of CP e.g., culture, stress, and child characteristics, individual attitudes are the single most powerful predictor when compared with alternative predictors of anger, perceptions of the seriousness, and intent of child misbehavior; (Ateah & Durrant, 2005) . Such attitudes reflect beliefs about the instrumental role of CP. Another finding (World Health Organization. connoted the Key realities of Corporal or physical discipline are exceedingly predominant and all-inclusive, both in homes and schools Around 60% of children aged 2 - 14 a long time routinely endure physical discipline by their guardians or other caregivers. In a few nations, nearly all understudies report being physically rebuffed by school staff. The hazard of being physically rebuffed is comparable for boys and young ladies and children from affluent and destitute families. Prove appears corporal discipline increments children’s behavioral issues over time and has no positive results. All corporal discipline, be that as it may, gentle or light carries an inbuilt hazard of heightening. Studies recommend that guardians who utilize corporal discipline are, at increased hazard of executing serious abuse.

Corporal discipline is connected to a run of negative results for children over nations and societies, including physical and mental ill-health, impeded cognitive and socio-emotional improvement, destitute instructive results, expanded animosity, and execution of savagery. Corporal discipline may be an infringement of children’s rights to regard physical astuteness and human nobility, well-being, improvement, instruction, and opportunity from torment and other pitiless, cruel, or corrupting treatment or discipline. The disposal of savagery against children is called for in a few targets of the 2030 Plan for Feasible Improvement but most expressly in Target 16.2: “end mishandling, misuse, trafficking and all shapes of viciousness against and torment of children”. Corporal discipline and the related hurts are preventable through multi-sectoral and multifaceted approaches, counting law change, changing destructive standards around child raising and discipline, parent and caregiver back, and school-based programming.

Focused on a recent Longitudinal study conducted on Inter-parental conflicts can have destroying effects on children’s well-being and social behavior (Hess, 2021) and there participatory respondents in German rigorous work and on his consider investigated the affiliation between an expanded recurrence of inter-parental conflict and peer issues and prosocial behavior in children, and whether parents’ passionate warmth and negative communication with their children intercedes this affiliation. As Figure 3 shows, Information for adding up to 1157 children between the ages of 7 and 16 (4016 perceptions) was drawn from the eighth to the twelfth waves of the German Family Board to perform fixed-effects relapses and intervention investigations. The examinations uncover that expanded inter-parental conflict is unequivocally related to diminished enthusiastic balminess and expanded negative communication in guardians, and to expanded peer issues and diminished prosocial behavior in children. The comes about moreover recommends that the affiliation between inter-parental conflict and children’s social well-being is interceded by the child-rearing behavior of moms and fathers, demonstrating that expanded inter-parental conflict leads to less warm child-rearing and more negative communication in guardians, which eventually decreases children’s social well-being.

In this think the test comprised 1157 children (4016 perceptions) who took an interest in the study at least twice during the perception period from Wave 8 in 2015/2016 to Wave 12 in 2019/2020. Figure 3 shows the test characteristics for the longitudinal test, as well as data for each cross-sectional wave. By and large, 281 children completed the survey twice inside the perception period, 308 children completed the survey three times, 310 children took an interest in four waves, and 258 children took part in all five waves. The longitudinal test comprised 52% boys and 48% young ladies. The members were matured 7 to 16 with a cruel age of 11.5 a long time. Mothers’ ages extended from 26 to 54 a long time (cruel: 41.2 a long time), and fathers’ ages extended from 25 to 70 a long time (cruel: 44.0 a long time). Since the consideration centers on changes in inter-parental struggle recurrence, the investigation was limited to children in two-parent families with hitched guardians. On normal, the guardians were hitched for 13.7 long times. Eleven percent of the children were as it were children, 52% of the children had one kin, and 37% had two or more kin within the

Figure 3. Typical characteristics of children and parents for understanding the mediating role of parental conflicts and parental behaviors on children’s social well-being.

household. The guardians included in the test are generally profoundly taught. Based on the Universal Standard Classification of Instruction (ISCED), 40% of moms and 49% of fathers were exceedingly taught, 55% of moms and 46% of fathers had a halfway instructive level, and 5% of moms and fathers had a lower instructive level. The larger part of moms was utilized (part-time: 59%, full-time: 22% and 6% worked more than 44 h per week). As it were 14% of moms were not utilized. About half the fathers were working more than full-time, in this way putting in extra time (>44 h week by week, 47%), and 48% were utilized full-time. As it were 5% of the fathers were utilized part-time and 0.3% were not utilized. This dispersion of utilized work in German guardians is well in line with the male-dominated dual-earner demonstration (mother utilized part-time, father utilized full-time), which is predominant in Germany (Keller & Kahle, 2018) .

The endless larger part of individuals in Bangladesh and numerous other nations still don’t consider corporal discipline to be a genuine risk to children’s physical and mental well-being ( Meem, Labonno, & Reza, 2021 , report in Commerce STANDARD) The thought of corporal discipline being advocated implies to teach children is well implanted inside common disciplinary hones in our nation. Concurring to an overview conducted by Bangladesh Legitimate Help and Administrations Believe (Impact) in collaboration with Spare the Children Worldwide (SCI), a shocking 67% of guardians back the utilization of physical discipline in school as a disciplinary strategy, and 79% confessed to beating their children at domestic. In a later report, it was expressed that 82.3% of Bangladeshi children under 14 have endured either mental or physical discipline.

Case study 1. F. Azad an 11 years old girl in Grade 6th, gave her opinion in regards to Corporal punishment at school and coaching center, that he had to go through sessions of Mental and physical beating every class if they misbehaved, didnt do the homework, or had bad results in exams. This beating wasnt only for the males but also for the females. Their mind was sensitized but not vital to share it with their parents or with anyone as it would come at a cost of saying why it happened tats is why they kept it to themselves and faced mental CP. The pressure of studies was too much for an 11-year-old to handle. He tried to convince their parents that drop out of that tuition and only concentrate on school but they didnt show any clear reasons that are why their parents didnt listen. Time went by, the pressure kept increasing and grades at tuition kept going down. Students lost most of their motivation. The physical beating kept increasing. Kids are hiding their exam papers from their parents for fear of getting scolded at home too. They knew they would tell them to only study harder. The school report card of students had great marks and it was enough to convince her parents that the students were doing good. Even the friends who knew everything about their lives didnt know about the dark side of their lives.

Case study 2: S. Azad, an 8th-grade student, shares his experience of corporal punishment not only at home but also in an educational institution. Mainly due to mental and some bad physical experiences that the condition then could not be told because it only manifests itself. The teacher who did this to him had something against him from the beginning. He does not put the name of the institute or the name of the teacher here. He went to great lengths to get him to get lower grades not only in his subject but also in other subjects later on. When he first noticed it, his parents went in and talked about it but things went wrong after that. He tried to get him to fill in the weirdness in every class by directly and mostly indirectly oddly talking about him. Its not the only time this has happened. Many other students were also among them. Then he found out that the teacher had another academy where he taught certain students. He realized that he treated them better than other students who didnt study with him at another institute. He liked certain that he taught in every class. Then, later that year, it became more intense. Each class asked some students a question and he taught some students right before and if that student couldnt answer correctly he punished them. When the final exam took place that year, he heard that he posed questions to some of the students he was teaching. Then most of the students didnt realize it and let it happen. But when he realized it, he went to the principal with his father and pointed it out to him as well. Formerly when he heard that the teacher was fined, he was also transferred to another class. All the students are feared for it, except for the student in question and the mental and physical aggression he has committed before.

Counted for this proposition survey was conducted by Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and the Institute of Informatics and Development. 126 people from Dhaka and Chittagong cities and villages participated in the survey titled “Corporal Punishment on Children in School: Present Scenario and Preventive Responsibility”. The organizations interviewed teachers, children, and their parents who participated in the survey. According to the survey, only one percent of parents feel that beating their children for no reason is a violation of their rights. 69% think that corporal punishment is very effective in disciplining children in the classroom, 55% think that corporal punishment is an effective way of proper development of children and 27% think that children can go astray without corporal punishment. (Corporal punishment is an outdated practice Published: Sunday, 11 June 2023) Whatever the collected survey report of BLAST, Bangladesh, the global viewpoint on corporal punishment is different in saying, that the impacts of physical discipline on understudies create more serious psychiatric and traumatic conditions in children. Substitutes in such an environment consider schools to be risky places and in this way, they avoid coming to schools. This sort of demeanor of understudies is the coordinated result of unforgiving corporal discipline and an unsupportive learning environment where physical discipline is the norm (Gershoff, 2002; Ahmad et al., 2013; Tharps, 2003) State of mind of understudies towards learning depends upon numerous components such as classroom environment, instructor demeanor, educational modules, and assets. Concurring to (Israel & Olubunmi, 2014) state of mind toward learning implies the design of students’ beliefs and feelings related to the classroom environment. Hannula (2002) found that students’ execution, viability, inspiration, and accomplishment in completely different subjects are related to their state of mind toward learning. A research ramification on the “Effect of Corporal Punishment on Students’ Motivation and Classroom Learning” (Ahmad, Said, & Khan, 2013) Covers students who are physically rebuffed create negative states of mind toward learning. Indeed such understudies who create into grown-ups have no sympathy for others. Inquire about has appeared that children who are beaten up by their instructors learn hostility (Boser, 2001; Friedman & Schonberg, 1996) . They create moo self-concept and see aggression as an implication to fathom issues of life. Ponders encourage demonstrated that corporal discipline scares children. They create moo self-esteem and appear despondency and delay taking an interest in learning activities (Flynn, 1994; Brezina, 1999; Straus & Field, 2003) . This sort of behavior has broader suggestions because it leads to greater viciousness in afterward stages of life (Patel, 2003) . The utilization of corporal discipline teaches a solid conviction within the naive minds of understudies that constrain is legitimized to control undesirable or undesirable behaviors. Eventually, this advances the demeanors of children that the utilization of constrain or hostility is a satisfactory act in society (Straus, 1991; Baumrind, 1996; Roos, 2003) . Agreeing with Rossouw (2003) alternates who get corporal discipline appear side effects of dejection in studies, destitute performance in tests, conjointly don’t take an interest in the instructing and learning handle excitedly. Morrel (2000) found that the utilization of corporal discipline impacts the participation of school children. Understudies stay missing from school and this circumstance of longer non-appearance leads to withdrawal from school, concurring to (Vally, 1998) —Spare the child and spoil the rod.

Analysts are moreover finding that physical discipline is connected to slower cognitive advancement and unfavorably influences scholarly accomplishment. Corporal discipline by moms and improvement of children’s cognitive capacity: a longitudinal ponder of two broadly agent age cohorts (Straus & Paschall, 2009) . At school, people knew some students as golden students but at tuition, they were spotted as C graders. At one point students got too used to this abuse and lost a big portion of the self-respect that they had. People also noticed behavioral changes in them but thought it was just a phase. They felt much more trapped and stressed. They also had their friend from their school studying the same tuition. This situation is similar for many of them. Neither of them ever talked about it to anyone. Certainly, their parents got a call from their teacher. After their conversation ended and asked their kids about the whole situation they are hesitant to tell about it to be open with her. Their parents talked to the teachers and told them to never hit a student again. It still didn’t work. After 3 months after that incident, many students dropped out of their tuition. Felt as if a burden had been removed from my shoulders. I hope that no other child goes through the same thing I went through and can have a stress-free childhood. In an analysis of the current situation of corporal punishment, the following question is imperative to diagnose through an anthropological lens for finding out the ramifications.

1) What are the causes and effects of using Corporal punishment on children in society?

2) Why the question emerged to ban Corporal Punishment as a treatment for administrating children at home and school and is there any evidence that CP has positive effects?

3) Why do people think it should be banned? What are the reasons?

3. Research Methodology and Sources of Data

This study is based on qualitative research collecting data from newspapers, periodicals, journals, and published books and reports. Relatively well-studied in Bangladesh and most of the available information is on this type of Corporal Punishment through longitudinal study of the culture of CP abroad. Substance examination is the central strategy of data collection for consideration. The predominance data is extricated from numerous English daily papers and a huge set of national universal reports and documented archives distributed from 1990-2023. This timeline proposes the importance of the representation of corporal discipline talk within the unused as patterns and inclinations over a decade. This consideration endeavored to supervise prohibiting activity list different settings, particularly at domestic and school, and centered on the repercussion of the viability of existing legitimate arrangements. State of lawful protection and daily paper voicing are considered two basic markers for the assurance of vital heading. Corporal Discipline in Bangladesh School Framework Investigative consideration was paid to the settings of all open and private auxiliary schools. The research is also based on data from the Bangladesh Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) and the Report of UNICEF Bangladesh and the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). However, due to various limitations, the scope of the data collected is not comprehensive and the information is not adequate.

4. Literature Review

Several autonomous examinations have found that children’s presentation to corporal discipline relates to forceful behaviors, mental well-being issues, scholastic issues, and cognitive shortages. Such results have deep-rooted results for grown-up wellbeing and well-being. Figure 4 shows the countries which have been maintaining the laws. A meta-analysis of 75 ponders found that childhood introduction to beating, the foremost common frame of corporal discipline, anticipated 13 of 17 negative results counting hostility, reserved behavior, mental well-being issues, no self-esteem, physical manhandling, introverted behavior, and destitute mental well-being in adulthood. ( Elgar et al., 2022; Michaelson & Ensom, 2022 Corporal discipline bans and physical battling in young people: And biological ponder of 88 nations. BMJ Open2018; 8:e021616. Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021616).


Figure 4. Scaling through criteria to demonstrate the data of banning status of No ban countries, Banned by all settings of corporal punishment as well the number of countries banned CP in school.

The predominance of visit physical battling among male and female young people in 88 nations and regions (sorted by the predominance of guys). Subtle elements around national probation laws are accessible at

Analytics of the World Vision of out of 88 countries’ situation of corporal punishment, the report of Bangladesh’s baseline survey done in 2018 shows that 50.8% of children aged 0 - 4 years experienced physical punishment and/or psychological aggression by caregivers. The same survey showed that 51.0% of children aged 5 - 17 years experienced physical punishment and/or psychological aggression by caregivers. Sexual violence against children in Bangladesh is also experiencing an increase. At present, one of the most signaling metaphors of the negative implication of corporal punishment is traced by the emphasis on several case studies of school-going students in Bangladesh that children are getting serious psychological disorders in childhood due to inhuman activity of their school and that notice is out of acknowledge to their parents. In detail to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2015, (UNICEF, 2020) Corporal discipline of children in Bangladesh was final upgraded in April 2022) The Government famous that several authoritative measures are still being created, including a “Ban on Corporal Discipline Approach and Rule 2015” and the Children Rules 2015. The Government also detailed that a law to boycott corporal discipline of children in all instructive education and working environments is being drafted, as well as a comprehensive law to boycott all shapes of viciousness against children, counting corporal discipline. Discussions have been carried out in Dhaka, Chittagong, and Patuakhali locale on alterations fundamental to existing laws on viciousness against children and suggestions submitted to the Service of Law, Equity, and Parliamentary Issues in Walk 2014. We are looking for assist data. In 2018, the Government bolstered clear proposals to sanction the forbiddance of all corporal discipline of children, counting within the domestic. However, the Worldwide Activity now does not consider Bangladesh committed to disallowing all corporal punishment of children without delay, as corporal discipline remains lawful in each setting of children’s lives and there’s no proof that the Government extraordinary to present enactment denying all corporal discipline. The act of physical viciousness by grown-ups against children runs from gentle steps to extraordinarily damaging indeed dangerous assaults. Ferocity at the higher conclusion of that continuum is promptly labeled as manhandling moreover acts of ferociousness at the lower conclusion of the range are for the most part acknowledged as fitting teaching by the parent to assist their children to create legitimately the study ( Graziano, 1994 , state university of new York at Buffalo).

One of the most terrifying issues traced, Physical discipline has gotten more inquired about consideration than other reactions to children’s behavior, guardians vary in their responses to children not fair in their utilization of physical discipline but too in an assortment of other ways. For case, in a few nations, calling the child defamatory names is acknowledged and practiced as an implication of educating the child right from off-base, though in other nations this kind of title calling would be unequivocally debilitated (Fung, 1999) . Moreover, a few social bunches depend more intensely on the control of benefits to oversee children’s behavior than do other social bunches (Kim & Hong, 2007) . Guardians in a few nations have been found to utilize clarifications concerning great and awful behavior as a socialization instrument outlined to educate their children about fitting and anticipated behavior inside their social and financial settings (Gershoff, 2010) . One might conceptualize parents’ reactions to children’s behavior as falling into three wide categories: 1) peaceful (e.g., advertising clarifications, expelling benefits), 2) mentally forceful (e.g., shouting, title calling, undermining), and 3) physically savage (e.g., slapping, beating with a protest). These three categories are not essentially commonly selected as these three sorts of reactions can happen at the same time; it is additionally conceivable for a clarification to be given in a forceful or undermining way. Over a long time, discoveries on the negative impacts of physical or corporal discipline have developed exponentially, as has the acknowledgment of the personhood of children and their right to live without viciousness. There’s overpowering proof of the hurts of corporal discipline. For illustration, a survey of over 300 ponders was found to illustrate affiliations between corporal discipline and various negative results. These negative results incorporate coordinated physical hurt; destitute ethical internalization, expanded introverted behavior; expanded animosity in children; grown-up execution of viciousness; mental and physical well-being issues in children; and harm to the parent-child relationship (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Heilmann, Mehay, Watt, Kelly, Durrant, van Turnhout, & Gershoff, 2021; Salhi et al., 2021) .

The concept & interpretation of corporal punishment varies in different cultures. Parents in many cultures go with corporal punishment to teach their children at home, on the other hand, there are parents in a different society who consider the method as banned and their children are growing positively. In many senses, this arisen issue is questionable. So I think it is necessary to analyze this single discipline” Corporal punishment” in many contexts such as Cultural anthropology (Culture at home, i.e. cultural norms, values & beliefs) and Comparative sociology (Historical sociology) through a global approach and then decide whether it should or should not be banned. It has been observed that Positive parenting through corporal punishment is cultural violence where culture at home is deemed as a true lens to see the real scenario of corporal punishment. In a close look, there are various parenting-related issues observed due to cultural variance but all parents are committed to their children’s best interests. A positive attitude toward the use of CP associated with behavioral problems in children is true but the adult attitudes could be changed. There is evidence (Gershoff”s, 2002) stated that despite the getting of CP as a disciplinary practice there is uprising evidence that CP is associated with short–term and long-term child behavior problems. He also coded that discipline is not substituted for punishment although, in several places, it means training and instructors’ education and it cannot be accomplished by overpowering undesired behaviors through punishment. In this context, Gershoff (2010) found attitude based on imperfect knowledge is less stable than more extensive knowledge. Another finding (Ateah & Durrant, 2005) individual approaches are the single most powerful predictor when compared with alternative forecasters (anger, perceptions) of the seriousness and intent of child misbehavior. Stated that there are many types of contributing factors to CP (e.g., culture, stress, child characteristics). Analysis: Based on research reports there are no significant outcomes in intensifying the development of children’s society through corporal punishment called positive parenting. While there is a huge constraint that has been traced as a negative consequence so corporal punishment strategy should be banned.

An “audit of investigate on the impacts of corporal discipline” by the Worldwide Activity to Conclusion All Corporal Discipline of Children, 2013 examined 150 things about and displayed a persuading case that corporal discipline is destructive for children, grown-ups, and social orders. Since at that point, a colossal sum of logical investigations has clearly illustrated the negative results of corporal discipline, which influences children’s physical and mental well-being, cognitive advancement, and instruction, additionally harms the parent-child relationship. Various investigations are recommended for the avoidance of CP since it is bed hone to perform corporal discipline on children causing a struggle between guardians and children. Our comes about recommend a have to decipher and spread observational discoveries concerning the negative effects of CP to the open in a way that’s profoundly touchy to parents’ has to feel in control and compelling when child-rearing. CP may be a solid chance figure for a child’s physical mishandling (Taylor, Al-Hiyari, Lee, Priebe, Guerrero, & Bales, 2015) . One population-based ponders found that parental utilization of CP increases the chances of child physical manhandling by about three times and by as much as nine times when a protest (e.g. a paddle, a belt) was utilized. The expanded utilization of CP is related to the expanded utilization of other shapes of parent-to-child physical and mental animosity as well as acts of disregard. Besides, there’s an expanded hazard Of CPS inclusion among newborn children who are corporally punished.

Diagnosis of the cause and effects traced that Intergenerational transmission still prevails concerning CP culture at home and school. In our society and culture of Bangladesh are regularized to observe the various experiences of CP coming through interviewing indifferent aged 12 to 15 school children. In our country, the education industry is seen more as a competition rather than the process of acquiring knowledge. For this reason, students are more likely to attend several tuitions to achieve better results, many students suffer various kinds of physical abuse. Regarding the said negative effects of CP a study was done in China on the Intergenerational transmission that harsh discipline focused on “the moderating role of parenting stress and parent gender” (Niu, Liu, & Wang, 2018) and inspected the intergenerational transmission of cruel teach (mental hostility and corporal discipline) and the directing impacts of child-rearing push and parent sex in Chinese social orders. Utilizing a test of 634 Chinese father-mother dyads with preschoolers, discoveries uncovered that both mothers’ and fathers’ unforgiving teach were transmitted over eras, and the quality of transmission changed by the seriousness of cruel teach and the parent sex. For both moms and fathers, tall child-rearing stretch heightens the intergenerational transmission of mental hostility and corporal discipline, while moo child-rearing push debilitates the transmission of mental hostility and indeed disturbs the transmission of corporal discipline. Additionally, the directing impacts of child-rearing push on the transmission were more grounded for moms than for fathers. Discoveries from the show think about highlight the significance of considering how the proximal natural components (such as child-rearing push) may impact the intergenerational transmission of cruel teaching.

Another negative effect of CP is that physical and mental abuse causes them to go through long-term depression. By 2000, inquiries about physical discipline had extended past its impact on child hostility. Thinks about appearing affiliations between physical discipline and mental well-being, physical harm, parent-child connections, and family savagery in adulthood. One of the primary such studies (MacMillan et al., 1999) . Slapping and beating in childhood and its affiliation with lifetime predominance of psychiatric clutters in a common populace test. MacMillan et al. (1999: 805-809) connected slapping and beating in childhood with psychiatric disarranges in adulthood in a huge Canadian test, and its discoveries have since been bolstered by an ever-growing number of things. Physical discipline is related to a run of mental well-being issues in children, youth, and grown-ups, counting misery, misery, uneasiness, sentiments of sadness, utilization of drugs and liquor, and common mental maladjustment (Afifi, Brownridge, Cox, & Sareen, 2006) . Physical discipline, childhood mishandling and psychiatric disarrange. Child Manhandle (Afifi et al. 2006: 1093-1103) . Contentions and clashes are an inescapable portion of family life, and inter-parental clashes are one of the foremost noticeable, parent-driven variables that adversely influence the domestic situations of children and youths (e.g., Brock & Kochanska, 2016; Lennings & Bussey, 2017; Hosokawa et al., 2017; Troxel & Matthews, 2004; Vandewater & Lansford, 1998 ). Clashes between guardians have been identified over and over within the writing as vital hazard variables for children’s mental well-being, behavioral and enthusiastic issues, and social behavior (e.g., Auersperg et al., 2019; Davies et al., 2016; McCoy et al., 2009; O’Hara et al., 2019 ). The writing proposes a large number of instruments to account for this affiliation, which can be assembled into coordinate and circuitous effects. Within the previous category, the inter-parental conflict has appeared to influence children’s well-being straightforwardly by disabling their feeling of security inside the family framework and debilitating the parent-child connection (Brock & Kochanska, 2016; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davies et al., 2016) . As a circuitous effect, inter-parental conflict can extremely meddle with child-rearing behavior, which can, in turn, lead to expanded issues for children (e.g., Coln et al., 2013; Hosokawa et al., 2017; McCoy et al., 2009 ).

CP utilization moreover is emphatically related to the nearness of hint accomplice viciousness in families which may be a solid chance figure for child abuse and in a few states considered a sort of abuse itself. Subsequently, children involved in CP are at expanded hazard of encountering other acts of viciousness, animosity, and disregard by their guardians. Past chance for encountering more savagery, CP raises the chance for extra destitute well-being results in children. In examinations that controlled for more extreme acts of child abuse, children who got CP were at expanded hazard for mental and physical well-being Issues and as well as ensuing forceful behavior Children who are punished are more likely to endorse physical hostility as an implication for understanding clashes with peers. Besides, the cruel level of discipline experienced in childhood has been connected with the hazard of execution of insinuate accomplice savagery in adulthood In this way, utilization of CP not as it were raises the hazard of significant hurt and diminished well-being for children, and it moreover propagates a cycle of viciousness. Upsetting circumstances are more likely to utilize CP (Simons, & Wurtele, 2010; Gershoff, 2002) . Particularly, these guardians were more likely to be youthful and single, to have more children and fewer money-related assets, and to report lower instructive attainments which have moreover been found to be related to ethnicity and devout connection. Considers report more visits CP utilize among African American guardians (Regalado, Sareen, Inkelas, Wissow, & Halfon, 2004; Straus & Stewart, 1999) and Preservationist Protestant guardians (Gershoff, Miller, & Holden, 1999) . In expansion, CP utilization has appeared to be more predominant among parents of male and preschool-aged children and by moms as compared to fathers (Gershoff, 2002; Straus & Stewart, 1999) . Hence, parental characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, instruction, conjugal status, and wage) and child characteristics (e.g., age and sex) have appeared to impact CP uses. CP utilization moreover depends on the sort of misbehavior of the child (Gershoff, 2002; Socolar & Stein, 1995) . Guardians report they are more likely to punish for prudential transgressions or when the misbehavior comes about in a danger to the child’s safety (e.g., running into an active road, lighting matches) as compared to ethical transgressions, which incorporate abusing others’ rights (e.g., taking, hitting a companion or kin). Fewer guardians favor utilizing CP for abusing social standards or family rules. Resisting a parent, eating with fingers, and hindering a parent on the phone; (Gershoff et al., 1999) .

On the side, the sort of misbehavior, parents utilize of CP too depends upon their claim encounters with being punished or hit as a child. Various considers have found that the utilization of CP shows up to be intergenerational; guardians who were physically punished as children endorse its utilization and are more likely to physically rebuff their claim children (e.g., Ateah & Parkin, 2002; Buntain-Ricklefs, Kemper, Chime, & Babonis, 1994; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Wu, 1991; Socolar & Stein, 1995; Straus & Moynihan, 1994 ). It is conceivable that through visit encounters of CP, children may not as it were create states of mind around the suitability of CP, but moreover create states of mind in bolster of forceful procedures for settling interpersonal struggle. When Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (1994) inspected the relationship between the detailed disciplinary hones of the guardians of preschoolers and the children’s forceful behavior toward their peers, they found that children who were punished carried on altogether more forcefully with their peers than children who were not punished. This finding recommends that by watching their guardians, punished children may be learning that hitting is a worthy implication of settling interpersonal clashes. The potential for this “side impact of spanking” (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003) needs assist investigation. The display ponders examined the side impact of punishing by analyzing the relationship between parental endorsement and children’s endorsement of the utilization of CP and the relationship between parental utilization of CP and children’s inclination for forceful struggle determination techniques.

Having mental well-being issues in childhood, Child abuse may be a major open well-being issue. It is assessed that one in eight US children will involvement abuse by the time they reach adulthood. Child abuse contributes not as it were to the chance of prompt damage and passing of children but also to a total and long-term chance of physical and mental well-being The tall predominance of child abuse combined with its solid well-being dangers proposes that successful population-level well-being instruction approaches may offer assistance to decrease this plague. There’s wide observational proof that the lives, mental well-being, and bliss of guardians unequivocally shape the well-being of children and teenagers. Parental qualities and behavior can decide whether children restrict harmful propensities such as smoking, are rationally solid, and carry on socially satisfactory conduct (Dickerson, 2021; Flouri et al., 2019; Nikolaou, 2017) . A significant sum of investigations in later a long time has centered on the effect of inter-parental conflict on children’s internalizing and externalizing issues (e.g., Davies et al., 2016; Koçak et al., 2017; Kouros et al., 2010; Zemp et al., 2018 ). A few things have connected inter-parental conflict and children’s social well-being, that’s, to a variety of children’s social behaviors within the school environment. Parental conflict, counting conjugal conflict and hint accomplice viciousness between guardians, has been found to anticipate diminished prosocial behavior, poorer social abilities, forceful behavior, disabled self-control, lower participation, and forlornness in children (Holmes et al., 2015; Hosokawa et al., 2017; Koçak et al., 2017; McCoy et al., 2009) . Considers have uncovered several transmission forms that clarify the instrument behind the effect of inter-parental conflict on children’s well-being. The driving transmitter shows up to be the child-rearing behavior of moms and fathers (e.g., Camisasca et al., 2016; Coln et al., 2013 ): Warm child-rearing behavior towards a child, as well as negative child-rearing hones such as mind control and negative communication, have more than once been identified as the intervening variables at the crossing point of inter-parental conflict and children’s prosocial behavior, school alteration, and by and large well-being (Coln et al., 2013; Hosokawa et al., 2017; Koçak et al., 2017; McCoy et al., 2013; Vandewater & Lansford, 1998) . The work out of CP creates the intergeneration transmission of physical discipline that’s destructive to getting a fitting demeanor & settling interpersonal with guardians and peers. Numerous thinks about have found that the utilization of CP shows up to be intergenerational; guardians who were physically rebuffed as children endorse its utilization and are more likely to physically rebuff their claim children (e.g., Ateah & Parkin, 2002; Buntain-Ricklefs, Kemper, & Babonis, 1994; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Wu, 1991; Socolar & Stein, 1995; Straus & Moynihan, 1994; Benjet & Kazdin, 2003) the finding recommends that by watching their guardians, punished children may be learning that hitting is a worthy implies of settling interpersonal clashes. The potential for this “side impact of spanking” Analysis. If the parent mentality and convictions don’t turn on the correct way at that point CP culture will show up from era to era which might impact contrarily to the children’s society at expansive. So that ought to be prohibited.

The pragmatic reason for banning corporal punishment is that it makes children aggressive behavior. Banning corporal punishment has much significance because it humiliates children psychologically and influences children’s aggressive and delinquent behaviors. In this context, already the United Nations General Assembly in 2015, prioritized target 16.2 In the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) to end abuse, exploitation, torture, and all forms of violence. Protecting children against violence has become a major priority for international organizations as well as many governments and has been screened in major treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by all countries in the world except the United States (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2015, Jason, Jernbro, & Langberg, 2011) . In Sweden, corporal punishment has been treated not just as its discrete category of parenting behaviors but framed in the context of other humiliating treatment of children. Morris & Gibson (2011) stated that children subject to corporal punishment may engage in aggressive and delinquent behavior more than those others who are not (Paolucci & Violato, 2010) . The effects of corporal punishment on affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. (Universal Periodic Review of Albania’s human rights record in 2014) in Albania. The child shall be protected from any form of violence 1) physical and psychological violence, 2) corporal punishment, and degrading and humiliating treatment. Corporal punishment in the home was outlawed in 2010. Article 21 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Child 2010 states: (see,and%20humiliating%20treatment%20of%20children). Analysis: According to the met analysis and empirical research it has been claimed the negative effects, thus considering the given doctrine the strategy of corporal punishment for teaching children society should be legislatively banned as many countries already banned.

Corporal discipline influences distinctive well-being issues in children that trigger hurtful mental and physiological reactions (Source World Health Organization Around 60% of children aged 2 - 14 a long time routinely endure physical discipline by their guardians. Children not as it were encounter torment, pity, fear, outrage, disgrace, and blame, but feeling undermined too leads to physiological push and the actuation of neural pathways that bolster managing with peril. Children who have been physically rebuffed tend to show tall hormonal reactivity to push, over-burden organic frameworks, counting the apprehensive, cardiovascular, and dietary frameworks, and changes in brain structure and work. A huge body of investigate appears joins between corporal discipline and a wide extend of negative results, both quick and long-term: direct physical hurt, some of the time coming about in serious harm, long-term incapacity or passing; mental ill-health, counting behavioral and uneasiness disarranges, misery, misery, moo self-esteem, self-harm and suicide endeavors, liquor and sedate reliance, threatening vibe and enthusiastic flimsiness, which proceed into adulthood; impeded cognitive and socio-emotional improvement, particularly feeling direction and strife fathoming aptitudes; harm to instruction, counting school dropout and lower scholastic and word related victory; destitute ethical internalization and expanded introverted behavior increased hostility in children; grown-up execution of rough, introverted and criminal behavior indirect physical hurt due to over-burden natural frameworks, counting creating cancer, alcohol-related issues, headache, cardiovascular illness, joint pain and corpulence that proceed into adulthood; expanded acknowledgment and utilize of other shapes of viciousness; and harmed family connections.

Ending corporal punishment of children is Time for action now ( Khondkar, 2021 , The Daily Star) From his encounters working in different nations such as Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, and Liberia, I know that any activity to present legitimate denial of corporal discipline is ordinarily met with resistance by grown-ups (guardians, instructors, community individuals, arrangement creators, etc.). They over and over claim that beating by guardians and instructors has been going on for a long in social orders, which is often a common hone. But nothing may be legitimized within the title of “convention” if that harms a human being. The essential point of legislation banning corporal discipline in all settings is to send a clear message that savagery against children will not be endured. It isn’t to arraign guardians or make them feel blameworthy. It appears that lawful changes have driven decreased acknowledgment of corporal discipline among guardians and other individuals in society. This has been the case in Sweden, Finland, Germany, Modern Zealand, Poland, and Romania. We moreover know that positive child-rearing programs advance non-violent child raising hones and can alter recognitions and demeanors among guardians, caregivers, and other individuals working with children.

5. Findings

The mounting proof connecting negative long-term results to physical discipline has contributed to a worldwide movement in the discernment of the home. In Canada, more than 400 organizations have supported the Joint Explanation on Physical Discipline of Children and Youth. A subset of these organizations is recorded in Reference Section 1 (accessible at In other nations, administrative changes have been organizations to better secure children. Going with these changes has been a developing accentuation on creating models of positive teaching that depend on peaceful and successful strife determination. Accounted all the relevant research findings has been observed that Positive parenting through corporal punishment is cultural violence where culture at home is deemed as a true lens through which to see the real scenario of corporal punishment. In a close look at cultural differences around the world, there are various parenting-related issues observed but all parents are committed to their children’s best interests. So for the greater interest of society corporal punishment should be considered a banned strategy for disciplining children at home and school. Numerous studies have found that physical punishment increases the risk of broad and enduring negative developmental outcomes. No study has found that physical punishment enhances developmental health. Most child physical abuse occurs in the context of punishment.

6. Conclusion

The study by 2000, investigations were multiplying, and the tradition had been approved by 191 of the world’s 196 nations, 11 of which had disallowed all physical discipline. Nowadays, investigations of the dangers related to physical discipline are vigorous, the tradition has been coordinated into the lawful and arrangement systems of numerous countries, and 31 nations have ordered forbiddances against the physical discipline of children through these three powers that one is inquiring about, the second tools is the tradition and law change and they have changed the scene of physical discipline. The following initiatives augmented to undertake positive disciplinary measures for better ramifications to ban corporal punishment, especially setting at Home and school: 1) Promoting peaceful child-rearing; 2) Parents ought to be bolstered in learning viable approaches to teaching; 3) Ought to expand child-rearing self-efficacy; 4) A required understanding of positive teaching; 5) Augmented to diminished attributions of commonplace parent-child clashes to the deliberateness of child behavior, and 6) Should diminish responsive reactions (disappointment) to struggle with their children.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.


[1] Afifi, T. O., Brownridge, D. A., Cox, B. J., & Sareen, J. (2006). Physical Punishment, Childhood Abuse and Psychiatric Disorders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1093-1103.
[2] Ahmad, I., Said, H., & Khan, F. (2013). Effect of Corporal Punishment on Students’ Motivation and Classroom Learning. Review of European Studies, 5, 130-134.
[3] Ateah, C. A., & Durrant, J. E. (2005). Maternal Use of Physical Punishment in Response to Child Misbehavior: Implications for Child Abuse Prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 169-185.
[4] Ateah, C. A., & Parkin, C. M. (2002). Childhood Experiences with, and Current Attitudes toward, Corporal Punishment. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 21, 35-46.
[5] Auersperg, F. et al. (2019). Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Mental Health—A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 119, 107-115.
[6] Baumrind, D. (1996). The Discipline Controversy Revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405-414.
[7] Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Spanking Children: The Controversies, Findings, and New Direction. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 197-224.
[8] Boser, U. (2001). Effect of Corporal Punishment on Students’ Motivation and Classroom Learning. Review of European Studies, 5, 130-134.
[9] Brezina, T. (1999). Teenage Violence toward Parents as an Adaptation to Family Strain: Evidence from a National Survey of Male Adolescents. Youth & Society, 30, 416-444.
[10] Brock, R. L., & Kochanska, G. (2016). Interparental Conflict, Children’s Security with Parents, and Long-Term Risk of Internalizing Problems: A Longitudinal Study from Ages 2 to 10. Development and Psychopathology, 28, 45-54.
[11] Buntain-Ricklefs, J. J., Kemper, K. J., & Babonis, T. (1994). Punishments: What Predicts Adult Approval. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 945-955.
[12] Camisasca, E. et al. (2016). Families with Distinct Levels of Marital Conflict and Child Adjustment: Which Role for Maternal and Paternal Stress? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 733-745.
[13] Catron, T. F., & Masters, J. C. (1993). Mothers’ and Children’s Conceptualizations of Corporal Punishment. Child Development, 64, 1815-1828.
[14] Coln, K. L., Jordan, S. S., & Mercer, S. H. (2013). A Unified Model Exploring Parenting Practices as Mediators of Marital Conflict and Children’s Adjustment. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 44, 419-429.
[15] Davies, P. T. et al. (2016). Transactional Cascades of Destructive Interparental Conflict, Children’s Emotional Insecurity, and Psychological Problems across Childhood and Adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 28, 653-671.
[16] Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Children and Marital Conflict: The Impact of Family Dispute and Resolution. Guilford Press.
[17] Dickerson, S. W. (2021) Maternal Psychological Well-Being and Offspring’s Outcomes in Peru: A Quantitative Analysis. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16, 527-571.
[18] Elgar, F. J., Cramm, L., & Pickett, W. (2022). Corporal Punishment Bans and Adolescent Suicide Rates: An International Ecological Study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 137, Article ID: 106022.
[19] Flouri, E. et al. (2019). Paternal Psychological Distress and Child Problem Behavior from Early Childhood to Middle Adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 58, 453-458.
[20] Flynn, C. P. (1994). Regional Differences in Attitudes toward Corporal Punishment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 314-324.
[21] Friedman, S. B., & Schonberg, S. K. (1996). The Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Corporal Punishment.
[22] Fung, H. (1999). Becoming a Moral Child: The Socialization of Shame among Young Chinese Children. Ethos, 27, 180-209.
[23] Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579.
[24] Gershoff, E. T. (2010). More Harm than Good: A Summary of Scientific Research on the Intended and Unintended Effects of Corporal Punishment on Children. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73, 31-56.
[25] Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 453-469.
[26] Gershoff, E. T., Miller, P. C., & Holden, G. W. (1999). Parenting Influences from the Pulpit: Religious Affiliation as a Determinant of Parental Corporal Punishment. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 307-320.
[27] Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (2015). Ending Violent Punishment of Children—A Foundation of a World Free from Fear and Violence.
[28] Goswami, H., Ibrahim Khalil, M., & Banik, B. K. (2018). Children’s Worlds National Report Bangladesh.
[29] Graziano, A. M. (1994). Why We Should Study Subabusive Violence against Children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 412-419.
[30] Hannula, M. (2002). Attitude toward Mathematics: Emotions, Expectations, and Values. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 22-29.
[31] Heilmann, A., Mehay, A., Watt, R. G., Kelly, Y., Durrant, J. E., van Turnhout, J., & Gershoff, E. T. (2021). Physical Punishment and Child Outcomes: A Narrative Review of Prospective Studies. The Lancet, 398, 355-364.
[32] Hess, S. (2021). Effects of Inter-Parental Conflict on Children’s Social Well-Being and the Mediation Role of Parenting Behavior. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17, 2059-2085.
[33] Holden, G. W., Brown, A. S., Baldwin, A. S., & Cadero, K. C. (2014). Research Findings Can Change Attitudes about Corporal Punishment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 902-908.
[34] Holden, G. W., Miller, P. C., & Harris, S. D. (1999). The Instrumental Side of Corporal Punishment: Parents’ Reported Practices and Outcome Expectancies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 908-919.
[35] Holmes, M. R., Voith, L. A., & Gromoske, A. N. (2015). Lasting Effect of Intimate Partner Violence Exposure during Preschool on Aggressive Behavior and Prosocial Skills. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1651-1670.
[36] Hosokawa, R., Katsura, T., & Shizawa, M. (2017). Relations of Mother’s Sense of Coherence and Childrearing Style with Child’s Social Skills in Preschoolers. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 11, Article No. 11.
[37] Israel, O. O., & Olubunmi, O. P. (2014). An Appraisal of Sciences and Mathematics Dyslexia and Dyscalculia Syndrome among Secondary Schools Students. American Journal of Educational Research, 2, 219-224.
[38] Jason, S., Jernbro, C., & Langberg, B. (2011). Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2015.
[39] Keller, M., & Kahle, I. (2018). Realisierte Erwerbstatigkeit von Müttern und Vatern zur Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf.
[40] Khondkar, L. (2021, April 30). Ending Corporal Punishment of Children: Time for Action Now. The Daily Star.
[41] Kim, E., & Hong, S. (2007). First-Generation Korean-American Parents’ Perceptions of Discipline. Journal of Professional Nursing, 23, 60-68.
[42] Kocak, A. et al. (2017). Interparental Conflict and Adolescents’ Relational Aggression and Loneliness: The Mediating Role of Maternal Psychological Control. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 3546-3558.
[43] Kouros, C. D. et al. (2010). Marital Conflict and Children’s Externalizing Behavior: Pathways Involving Interactions between Parasympathetic and Sympathetic Nervous System Activity. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 74, vii-79.
[44] Lennings, B., & Bussey, K. (2017). The Mediating Role of Coping Self-Efficacy Beliefs on the Relationship between Parental Conflict and Child Psychological Adjustment. Social Development, 26, 753-766.
[45] MacMillan, H. L. et al. (1999). Slapping and Spanking in Childhood and Its Association with Lifetime Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in a General Population Sample. CMAJ, 161, 805-809.
[46] McCoy, K. P. et al. (2009). Constructive and Destructive Marital Conflict, Emotional Security and Children’s Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 270-279.
[47] McCoy, K. P. et al. (2013). Constructive and Destructive Marital Conflict, Parenting, and Children’s School and Social Adjustment. Social Development, 22, 641-662.
[48] Meem, S. A., Labonno, F. S., & Reza, A. (2021). Corporal Punishment: A Crime Made Acceptable by Society. Report in Business Standard.
[49] Michaelson, V. & Ensom, R. (2022). Ending the Social Normalization of Violence against Children in Canada: A Framework, Rationale, and Appeal to Canadian Faith Leaders. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, Article No. 17016.
[50] MICS (2019).
[51] Morrel, R. (2000). Corporal Punishment in South African Schools: A Neglected Explanation for Its Existence. South African Journal of Education, 21, 292-299.
[52] Morris, S. Z., & Gibson, C. L. (2011). Corporal Punishment Influence on Children’s Aggressive and Delinquent Behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 818-839.
[53] Nikolaou, D. (2017). Maternal Life Satisfaction, Marital Status, and Child Skill Formation. Eastern Economic Journal, 43, 621-648.
[54] Niu, H., Liu, L., & Wang, M. F. (2018). Intergenerational Transmission of Harsh Discipline: The Moderating Role of Parenting Stress and Parent Gender. Child Abuse & Neglect, 79, 1-10.
[55] O’Hara, K. L. et al. (2019). Effects of a Preventive Parenting Intervention for Bereaved Families on the Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting Attitudes: Mediating Processes. Development and Psychopathology, 1-17.
[56] Paolucci, E. O., & Violato, C. (2010). A Meta-Analysis of the Published Research on the Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Effects of Corporal Punishment. The Journal of Psychology, 138, 197-221.
[57] Patel, D. R. (2003). Corporal Punishment in Schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 245-261.
[58] Regalado, M., Sareen, H., Inkelas, M., Wissow, L. S., & Halfon, N. (2004). Parents’ Discipline of Young Children: Results from the National Survey of Early Childhood Health. Pediatrics, 113, 1952-1958.
[59] Report of UNICEF Bangladesh and the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) (2019).
[60] Rohner, R. P., & Steely, A. C. (2005) Relations among Corporal Punishment, Perceived Parental Acceptance, and Psychological Adjustment in Jamaican Youths. Cross-Cultural Research, 40, 268-286.
[61] Roos, R. (2003). Legal Requirements for School Rules and Disciplinary Sanctions. Koers—Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 68, 481-498.
[62] Rossouw, J. P. (2003). Learner Discipline in South African Public Schools—A Qualitative Study. Koers—Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 68, 413-435.
[63] Salhi, C., Beatriz, E., McBain, R., McCoy, D., Sheridan, M., & Fink, G. (2021). Physical Discipline, Deprivation, and Differential Risk of Developmental Delay across 17 Countries. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 60, 296-306.
[64] Save the Children Alliance 2003:1 (2003).
[65] Shishu Act (CA 2013) in Bangladesh.
[66] Simons, D. A, & Wurtele, S. K. (2010). Relationships between Parents’ Use of Corporal Punishment and Their Children’s Endorsement of Spanking and Hitting Other Children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 639-646.
[67] Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, C., & Wu, C.-I. (1991). Intergenerational Transmission of Harsh Parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171.
[68] Socolar, R. R. S., & Stein, R. E. K. (1995). Spanking Infants and Toddlers: Maternal Belief and Practice. Pediatrics, 95, 105-111.
[69] Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Spanking in the Home and Children’s Subsequent Aggression toward Kindergarten Peers. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 445-461.
[70] Straus, M. A. (1991). Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of Children and Violence and Other Crime in Adulthood. Social Problems, 38, 133-154.
[71] Straus, M. A., & Field, C. J. (2003) Psychological Aggression by American Parents: National Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, and Severity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 795-808.
[72] Straus, M. A., & Moynihan, D. A. (1994). Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families.
[73] Straus, M. A., & Paschall, M. J. (2009). Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Development of Children’s Cognitive Ability: A Longitudinal Study of Two Nationally Representative Age Cohorts. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 459-483.
[74] Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal Punishment by American Parents: National Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, Severity, and Duration, in Relation to Child and Family Characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55-70.
[75] Taylor, C. A., Al-Hiyari, R., Lee, S. J., Priebe, A., Guerrero, L. W., & Bales, A. (2015). Beliefs and Ideologies Linked with Approval of Corporal Punishment: A Content Analysis of Online Comments. Health Education Research, 31, 563-575.
[76] Taylor, C. A., Hamvas, L., & Paris, R. (2011). Perceived Instrumentality and Normativeness of Corporal Punishment Use among Black Mothers. Family Relations, 60, 60-72.
[77] Tharps, L. L. (2003). The Truth about Spanking. Essence, 33, No.1 .
[78] Troxel, W. M., & Matthews, K. A. (2004). What Are the Costs of Marital Conflict and Dissolution to Children’s Physical Health? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7, 29-57.
[79] UNICEF (1999). Corporal Punishment through Informal Interviews with Children about Corporal Punishment at School and Home.
[80] UNICEF (2014). Hidden Obvious: A Statistical Analysis of Violence against Children.
[81] UNICEF (2020). Corporal Punishment of Children in Bangladesh.
[82] Vally, S. (1998). Spare the Child and Spoil the Rod. The Educator’s Voice, 2, 4-5.
[83] Vandewater, E. A., & Lansford, J. E. (1998). Influences of Family Structure and Parental Conflict on Children’s Well-Being. Family Relations, 47, 323-330.
[84] Vittrup, B., Holden, G. W., & Buck, J. (2006). Attitudes Predict the Use of Physical Punishment: A Prospective Study of the Emergence of Disciplinary Practices. Pediatrics, 117, 2055-2064.
[85] Voisine, S., & Baker, A. L. (2012). Universal Parenting Programs Discourage Parents from Using Corporal Punishment: A Program Review. Families in Society, 93, 212-218.
[86] Wagner, M., Spiker, D., & Linn, M. I. (2002). The Effectiveness of the Parents as Teachers Program with Low-Income Parents and Children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 67-81.
[87] Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249-268.
[88] Xing, Y. X., Wang, M. F., Wang, Y. Z., & Wang, F. (2019). Exploring the Reciprocal Relations between Mothers’ and Fathers’ Use and Attitudes of Corporal Punishment in China: A Cross-Lagged Analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 88, 171-178.
[89] Zemp, M. (2018). Within-Family Processes: Interparental and Coparenting Conflict and Child Adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 32, 299-309.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.