Smacking children is the best form of discipline. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Inculcating discipline is critical to a child ’s development. As per many parents, corporal punishment is the best means of doing this. This essay will argue why smacking children is entirely unnecessary despite some people believing otherwise. A lot of people use physical violence on their child in order to reprimand them. This is because it is ingrained in their system that hitting a child is the most effective way to control bad behaviour. Having experienced it first -hand by their parents, they feel it is justifiable as inflicting pain would help them learn better. Indeed, there have been some recorded instances of children reacting positively to violence, thereby curbing their temper tantrums. These few examples have bolstered existing beliefs in parents that smacking a child is essential. Even though physical beating might work for some families, the idea that it is the best form of discipline is completely preposterous. By resorting to bodily punishments, parents instil a sense of fear among children consequently leading them to become meek and submissive and hindering their mental development. In addition, they tend to normalize violence as a manifestation of power resulting in them developing a violent streak. A recent study conducted on this topic concluded that a vast 60% of the children suffered from anxiety and trauma as a result of being smacked and about 40% of them became increasingly aggressive. Therefore, the notion that violence is an efficacious instrument of child discipline, is not only ill-informed in itself, but also potentially dangerous. To sum up, hitting children may be seen as a useful way of disciplining them according to some people, but it is by no means an ideal one. This essay argued why the use of physical violence can be detrimental to a child 's cognitive development. In my opinion, smacking a child affects them negatively and as such, is absolutely unacceptable.