Academic literature on the topic 'Corporal punishment of children – Law and legislation – Swaziland'

Canadian data show that children and youth experience high degrees of violence in their lives. A significant degree of this violence occurs within the family, and can be attributed to excesive ‘correction’ or physical discipline. Indeed, section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code permits the use of ‘reasonable’ force for the purposes of correction. This paper presents data on police response to allegations of excessive or illegal corporal punishment under current Canadian legislation. As the gatekeepers to the courts, the police act as the social, legal and moral guardians of the use of corporal punishment in Canada. The findings suggest that there is significant variation in police response both to the range and seriousness of incidents of corporal punishment. Much of this can be attributed to the normal exercise of police discretion. However, the breadth and lack of clarity in the law itself is an additional, problematic source of uncertainty and undermines attempts to reduce violence in the lives of children.

Corporal punishment of children in their education are important issues that historically have been accepted and Yankvhsh Unfortunately in today's society has neglected the rights of children and adults of these rights by violated. Islamic jurisprudence is recommended to right what ways? As well as laws have been codified in law what is? In the verses of Quran and Hadith from the infallible Imams come from (PBUH) emphasizes the reverence, love, forgiveness, compassion and Rfq and productive than children. On Islamic law, as is early in the punishment of child esteem and under certain conditions as a measure to maintain the system for training and behavior modification, family and children, voided, and to protect the interests, sanctions such as liability and responsibility, provided is. In this regard, in particular understanding of Islam and Shiite jurisprudence that laws in our country is the source and the directive could be an important step for appropriate legislation B for children. The law tries years of punishment and corporal punishment of children to prevent and eliminate this phenomenon in human society and in recent years a comprehensive international instrument to assert the rights of children and the prohibition of corporal punishment for exercising their raised have. Thus, at the outset, and seemingly contradictory approaches is formed. Therefore, in this study, explain and evaluate the real subject of two approaches have been tried according to the interests, rights, education, interests and protect the interests of children, the ways to close the two approaches together will be offered.

There are enough provisions in the Lithuanian legislation prohibiting the imposition of corporal punishment, however, legal restrictions are ineffective – Lithuania is identified as the country in which parents often impose corporal punishment on their children. Although the harm of corporal punishment has been established, however, the debate that parents must be able to use corporal punishment as a dissuasive measure has been continuing up till now. Certain countries have placed a legal ban on the use of corporal punishment, and that has contributed to the change of the attitude of society towards the child. The article attempts to find still new arguments that the ban of corporal punishment towards children would be forbidden by law in Lithuania. The goal of the study is to elicit views on the use of corporal punishment towards children, reveal the links of this view with the level of happiness and the experience of corporal punishment in childhood. The method of the study is a questionnaire survey at the respondent’s home. 1002 people that are older than 18 from 19 towns and 31 villages participated in the study. The study has established that the persons who underwent corporal punishment in childhood more often support the view that “moderate corporal punishment is a proper parenting tool” than those who did not undergo corporal punishment in childhood. It has come to light that the opinion of the Lithuanian society on the use of corporal punishment towards children is changing – the investigates, who belonged to the younger age groups assessed corporal punishment more negatively than the older investigates. The respondents with higher levels of education supported corporal punishment of children more rarely than the respondents with lower levels of education. It has been established that that those who underwent corporal punishment in their childhood feel less happy that those who did not undergo corporal punishment.

The time after 1945 is one of the most important moments in the process of developing children’s rights, because for the first time in the history of Polish legislation the established law had equalized the legal position of all children, abolishing all differences between those who were born in and outside of marriage. The analysis carried out in the text shows that the law established at that time was not only progressive in relation to the past, but it also kept up to date, about which, after the liberal breakthrough of 1989, we do not want to remember. The developed principles of exercising parental authority, with parents’ rights and duties equated, caused the concept of the child welfare to play a leading role in the interpretation of family law. The child welfare has therefore become the basic value that requires priority treatment. It is also important that after 1945 the process of eliminating children’s corporal punishment from the pre-school and school environment, and now also from the family circle, was initiated.

Until the early 19th century, the selection of educational measures by parents and guardians in relation to the children under their care, including those serving to discipline the youngest, was not usually legally restricted. A change in this issue can be observed with the emergence of family law regulations in large European civil law codifications. Each of these regulations in force on the Polish territories of the 19th century, partitioned between three neighbouring powers, clearly referred to the power to discipline a disobedient child. Such disciplining was allowed in each of them, though it was regulated differently, both in terms of defining its grounds, relations to paternal/parental authority, as well as the established restrictions and measures to protect the child. After the Second World War, in Polish legislation we can observe an increasing interference in the autonomy of parents and guardians, when disciplining disappeared from the catalogue of explicitly mentioned educational measures, until the most recent times, when corporal punishment of the youngest was explicitly prohibited in 2010. In the following article, the author attempts to review and briefly summarize the regulations on disciplining children in the basic legal acts in force in Poland since the beginning of the 19th century, going through the early 20th century and the interwar period, the times of the occupation and People's Republic of Poland, until the current legal status. In addition to the parental powers, the author examines similar provisions regarding the legal guardian.

BASTARDYAll children born before matrimony, or so long after the death of the husband as to render it impossible that the child could be begotten by him, are bastards.– Cro. Jac. 451William Toone: The Magistrates Manual, 1817 (66)On 4 September 1832, the body of a newborn baby boy was found washed up on the shore at the port town of Fremantle, Western Australia. As the result of an inquest into the child’s suspicious death, a 20-year-old, unmarried woman named Mary Summerland was accused of concealing his birth. In October 2014, 25-year-old Irish backpacker Caroline Quinn faced court in Perth, Western Australia, over claims that she concealed the birth of her stillborn child after giving birth in the remote north west town of Halls Creek during May of the same year. Both women denied the existence of their children, both appear to have given birth to their “illegitimate” babies alone, and both women claimed that they did not know that they had ever been pregnant at all. In addition, both women hid the body of their dead child for several days while the people they lived with or were close to, did not appear to notice that the mother of the child had had a baby. In neither case did any person associated with either woman seek to look for the missing child after it had been born.Despite occurring 182 years apart, the striking similarities between these cases could lead to the assumption that it is almost as if there were a written script of behaviour that would explain the actions of both young women. Close examination of the laws surrounding child murder, infanticide and concealment of birth reveals evidence of similar behaviours being enacted by women as far back as the 1600s (and earlier), and all are shaped in response to the legal frameworks that prosecuted women who gave birth outside of marriage.This article traces the history of child murder law from its formation in England in the 1600s and explores how early moral assumptions concerning unmarried mothers echoed through the lived experiences of women who killed their illegitimate babies in colonial Western Australia, and continue to resonate in the treatment of, and legal response to, women accused of similar crimes in the present day. The Unlicensed ChildThe unlicensed child is a term coined by Swain and Howe to more accurately define the social matrix faced by single women and their children in Australia. The term seeks to emphasise the repressive and controlling religious, legal and social pressures that acted on Australian women who had children outside marriage until the mid-1970s (xxi, 1, 92, 94). For the purposes of this article, I extend Swain and Howe’s term the unlicensed child to coin the term the unlicensed mother. Following on from Swain and Howe’s definition, if the children of unmarried mothers did not have a license to be born, it is essential to acknowledge that their mothers did not have a license to give birth. Women who had children without social and legal sanction gave birth within a society that did not allocate them “permission” to be mothers, something that the corporeality of pregnancy made it impossible for them not to be. Their own bodies—and the bodies of the babies growing inside them—betrayed them. Unlicensed mothers were punished socially, religiously, legally and financially, and their children were considered sinful and inferior to children who had married parents simply because they had been born (Scheper-Hughes 410). This unspoken lack of authorisation to experience the unavoidably innate physicality of pregnancy, birth and motherhood, in turn implies that, until recently unmarried mothers did not have license to be mothers. Two MothersAll that remains of the “case” of Mary Summerland is a file archived at the State Records Office of Western Australia under the title CONS 3472, Item 10: Rex V Mary Summerland. Yet revealed within those sparse documents is a story echoed by the events surrounding Caroline Quinn nearly two hundred years later. In September 1832, Mary Summerland was an unmarried domestic servant living and working in Fremantle when the body of a baby was found lying on a beach very close to the settlement. Western Australia had only been colonized by the British in 1829. The discovery of the body of an infant in such a tiny village (colonial Fremantle had a population of only 436 women and girls out of 1341 non-Aboriginal emigrants) (Gardiner) set in motion an inquest that resulted in Mary Summerland being investigated over the suspicious death of the child.The records suggest that Mary may have given birth, apparently alone, over a week prior to the corpse of the baby being discovered, yet no one in Fremantle, including her employer and her family, appeared to have noticed that Mary might have been pregnant, or that she had given birth to a child. When Mary Summerland was eventually accused of giving birth to the baby, she strongly denied that she had ever been pregnant, and denied being the mother of the child. It is not known how her infant ended up being disposed of in the ocean. It is also not known if Mary was eventually charged with concealment or child murder, but in either scenario, the case against her was dismissed as “no true bill” when she faced her trial. The details publically available on the case of Caroline Quinn are also sparse. Even the sex of her child has not been revealed in any of the media coverage of the event. Yet examination of the limited details available on her charge of “concealment of birth” reveal similarities between her behaviours and those of Mary Summerland.In May 2014 Caroline Quinn had been “travelling with friends in the Kimberly region of Western Australia” (Lee), and, just as Mary did, Caroline claims she “did not realise that she was pregnant” when she went into labour (Independent.ie). She appears, like Mary Summerland, to have given birth alone, and also like Mary, when her child died due to unexplained circumstances she hid the corpse for several days. Also echoing Mary’s story, no person in the sparsely populated Hall’s Creek community (the town has a populace of 1,211) or any friends in Caroline’s circle of acquaintances appears to have noticed her pregnancy, nor did they realise that she had given birth to a baby until the body of the child was discovered hidden in a hotel room several days after her or his birth. The media records are unclear as to whether Caroline revealed her condition to her friends or whether they “discovered” the body without her assistance. The case was not brought to the attention of authorities until Caroline’s friends took her to receive medical attention at the local hospital and staff there notified the police.Media coverage of the death of Caroline Quinn’s baby suggests her child was stillborn or died soon after birth. As of 13 August 2014 Caroline was granted leave by the Chief Magistrate to return home to Ireland while she awaited her trial, as “without trivialising the matter, nothing more serious was alleged than the concealing of the birth” (Collins, "Irish Woman"). Caroline Quinn was not required to return to Australia to appear at her trial and when the case was presented at the Perth Magistrates Court on Thursday 2 October, all charges against her were dropped as the prosecutor felt “it was not in the public interest” to proceed with legal action (Collins, "Case").Statutory MarginalisationTo understand the similarities between the behaviours of, and legal and medical response to, Mary Summerland and Caroline Quinn, it is important to situate the deaths of their children within the wider context of child murder, concealment of birth and “bastardy” law. Tracing the development of these methods of law-making clarifies the parallels between much of the child murder, infanticide and concealment of birth narrative that has occurred in Western Australia since non-Aboriginal settlement.Despite the isolated nature of Western Australia, the nearly 400 years since the law was formed in England, and the extremely remote rural locations where both these women lived and worked, their stories are remarkably alike. It is almost as if there were a written script and each member of the cast knew what role to play: both Mary and Caroline knew to hide their pregnancies, to deny the overwhelmingly traumatic experience of giving birth alone, and to conceal the corpses of their babies. The fathers of their children appear to have cut off any connection to the women or their child. The family, friends, or employers of the parents of the dead babies knew to pretend that they did not know that the mother was pregnant or who the father was. The police and medical officers knew to charge these women and to collect evidence that could be used to simultaneously meet the needs of the both prosecution and the defence when the cases were brought to trial.In reference to Mary Summerland’s case, in colonial Western Australia when a woman gave birth to an infant who died under suspicious circumstances, she could be prosecuted with two charges: “child murder” and/or “concealment of birth”. It is suggestive that Mary may have been charged with both. The laws regarding these two offences were focused almost exclusively on the deaths of unlicensed children and were so deeply interconnected they are difficult to untangle. For Probyn, shame pierces the centre of who we think we are, “what makes it remarkable is that it reveals with precision our values, hopes and aspirations, beyond the generalities of good manners and cultured norms” (x). Dipping into the streams of legal and medical discourse that flow back to the seventeenth century highlights the pervasiveness of discourses marginalising single women and their children. This situates Mary Summerland and Caroline Quinn within a ‘burden on society’ narrative of guilt, blame and shame that has been in circulation for over 500 years, and continues to resonate in the present (Coull).An Act to Prevent the Destroying and Murthering of Bastard ChildrenIn England prior to the 17th century, penalties for extramarital sex, the birth and/or maintenance of unlicensed children or for committing child murder were expressed through church courts (Damme 2-6; Rapaport 548; Butler 61; Hoffer and Hull 3-4). Discussion of how the punishment of child murder left the religious sphere and came to be regulated by secular laws that were focused exclusively on the unlicensed mother points to two main arguments: firstly, the patriarchal response to unlicensed (particularly female) sexuality; and secondly, a moral panic regarding a perceived rise in unlicensed pregnancies in women of the lower classes, and the resulting financial burden placed on local parishes to support unwanted, unlicensed children (Rapaport 532, 48-52; McMahon XVII, 126-29; Osborne 49; Meyer 3-8 of 14). In many respects, as Meyer suggests, “the legal system subtly encouraged neonaticide through its nearly universally negative treatment of bastard children” (240).The first of these “personal control laws” (Hoffer and Hull 13) was the Old Poor Law created by Henry VIII in 1533, and put in place to regulate all members of English society who needed to rely on the financial assistance of the parish to survive. Prior to 1533, “by custom the children of the rich depended on their relations, while the ‘fatherless poor’ relied on the charity of the monastic institutions and the municipalities” (Teichman 60-61). Its implementation marks the historical point where the state began to take responsibility for maintenance of the poor away from the church by holding communities responsible for “the problem of destitution” (Teichman 60-61; Meyer 243).The establishment of the poor law system of relief created a hierarchy of poverty in which some poor people, such as those suffering from sickness or those who were old, were seen as worthy of receiving support, while others, who were destitute as a result of “debauchery” or other self-inflicted means were seen as undeserving and sent to a house of correction or common gaol. Underprivileged, unlicensed mothers and their children were seen to be part of the category of recipients unfit for help (Jackson 31). Burdens on SocietyIt was in response to the narrative of poor unlicensed women and their children being undeserving fiscal burdens on law abiding, financially stretched community members that in 1576 a law targeted specifically at holding genetic parents responsible for the financial maintenance of unlicensed children entered the secular courts for the first time. Called the Elizabethan Poor Law it was enacted in response to the concerns of local parishes who felt that, due to the expenses exacted by the poor laws, they were being burdened with the care of a greatly increased number of unlicensed children (Jackson 30; Meyer 5-6; Teichman 61). While the 1576 legislation prosecuted both parents of unlicensed children, McMahon interprets the law as being created in response to a blend of moral and economic forces, undergirded by a deep, collective fear of illegitimacy (McMahon 128). By the 1570s “unwed mothers were routinely whipped and sent to prison” (Meyer 242) and “guardians of the poor” could force unlicensed mothers to wear a “badge” (Teichman 63). Yet surprisingly, while parishes felt that numbers of unlicensed children were increasing, no concomitant rise was actually recorded (McMahon 128).The most damning evidence of the failure of this law, was the surging incidence of infanticide following its implementation (Rapaport 548-49; Hoffer and Hull 11-13). After 1576 the number of women prosecuted for infanticide increased by 225 percent. Convictions resulting in unlicensed mothers being executed also rose (Meyer 246; Hoffer and Hull 8, 18).Infanticide IncreasesBy 1624 the level of infanticide in local communities was deemed to be so great An Act to Prevent the Destroying and Murthering of Bastard Children was created. The Act made child murder a “sex-specific crime”, focused exclusively on the unlicensed mother, who if found guilty of the offence was punished by death. Probyn suggests that “shame is intimately social” (77) and indeed, the wording of An Act to Prevent highlights the remarkably similar behaviours enacted by single women desperate to avoid the shame and criminal implication linked to the social position of unlicensed mother: Whereas many lewd Women that have been delivered of Bastard Children, to avoyd their shame and to escape punishment [my italics], doe secretlie bury, or conceale the Death of their Children, and after if the child be found dead the said Women doe alleadge that the said Children were borne dead;…For the preventing therefore of this great Mischiefe…if any Woman…be delivered of any issue of the Body, Male or Female, which being born alive, should by the Lawes of this Realm be a bastard, and that she endeavour privatlie either by drowning or secret burying thereof, or any other way, either by herselfe of the procuring of others, soe to conceale the Death thereof, as that it may not come to light, whether it be borne alive or not, but be concealed, in every such Case the Mother so offending shall suffer Death… (Davies 214; O'Donovan 259; Law Reform Commission of Western Australia 104; Osborne 49; Rose 1-2; Rapaport 548). An Act to Prevent also “contained an extraordinary provision which was a reversion of the ordinary common law presumption of dead birth” (Davies 214), removing the burden of proof from the prosecution and placing it on the defence (Francus 133; McMahon 128; Meyer 2 of 14). The implication being that if the dead body of a newborn, unlicensed baby was found hidden, it was automatically assumed that the child had been murdered by their mother (Law Reform Commission of Western Australia 104; Osborne 49; Rapaport 549-50; Francus 133). This made the Act unusual in that “the offence involved was the concealment of death rather than the death itself” (O'Donovan 259). The only way an unlicensed mother charged with child murder was able to avoid capital punishment was to produce at least one witness to give evidence that the child was “borne dead” (Law Reform Commission of Western Australia 104; Meyer 238; McMahon 126-27).Remarkable SimilaritiesClearly, the objective of An Act to Prevent was not simply to preserve infant life. It is suggestive that it was enacted in response to women wishing to avoid the legal, social, corporal and religious punishment highlighted by the implementation of the poor law legislation enacted throughout earlier centuries. It is also suggestive that these pressures were so powerful that threat of death if found guilty of killing their neonate baby was not enough to deter women from concealing their unlicensed pregnancies and committing child murder. Strikingly analogous to the behaviours of Mary Summerland in 19th century colonial Western Australia, and Caroline Quinn in 2014, the self-preservation implicit in the “strategies of secrecy” (Gowing 87) surrounding unlicensed birth and child murder often left the mother of a dead baby as the only witness to her baby’s death (McMahon xvii 49-50).An Act to Prevent set in motion the legislation that was eventually used to prosecute Mary Summerland in colonial Western Australia (Jackson 7, Davies, 213) and remnants of it still linger in the present where they have been incorporated into the ‘concealment of birth law’ that prosecuted Caroline Quinn (Legal Online TLA [10.1.182]).Changing the ‘Script’Shame runs like a viral code through the centuries to resonate within the legal response to women who committed infanticide in colonial Western Australia. It continues on through the behaviours of, and legal responses to, the story of Caroline Quinn and her child. As Probyn observes, “shame reminds us about the promises we keep to ourselves” in turn revealing our desire for belonging and elements of our deepest fears (p. x). While Caroline may live in a society that no longer outwardly condemns women who give birth outside of marriage, it is fascinating that the suite of behaviours manifested in response to her pregnancy and the birth of her child—by herself, her friends, and the wider community—can be linked to the narratives surrounding the formation of “child murder” and “concealment” law nearly 400 years earlier. Caroline’s narrative also encompasses similar behaviours enacted by Mary Summerland in 1832, in particular that Caroline knew to say that her child was “born dead” and that she had merely concealed her or his body—nothing more. This behaviour appears to have secured the release of both women as although both Mary and Caroline faced criminal investigation, neither was convicted of any crime. Yet, neither of these women or their small communities were alone in their responses. My research has uncovered 55 cases linked to child murder in Western Australia and the people involved in all of these incidences share unusually similar behaviours (Gardiner). Perhaps, it is only through the wider community becoming aware of the resonance of child murder law echoing through the centuries, that certain women who are pregnant with unwanted children will be able to write a different script for themselves, and their “unlicensed” children. ReferencesButler, Sara, M. "A Case of Indifference? Child Murder in Later Medieval England." Journal of Women's History 19.4 (2007): 59-82. Collins, Padraig. "Case against Irish Woman for Concealing Birth Dropped." The Irish Times 2 Oct. 2014. ---. "Irish Woman Held for Hiding Birth in Australia Allowed Return Home." The Irish Times 13 Aug. 2014. Coull, Kim. “The Womb Artist – A Novel: Translating Late Discovery Adoptee Pre-Verbal Trauma into Narrative”. Dissertation. Perth, WA: Edith Cowan University, 2014.Damme, Catherine. "Infanticide: The Worth of an Infant under Law." Medical History 22.1 (1978): 1-24. Davies, D.S. "Child-Killing in English Law." The Modern Law Review 1.3 (1937): 203-23. Dickinson, J.R., and J.A. Sharpe. "Infanticide in Early Modern England: The Court of Great Sessions at Chester, 1650-1800." Infanticide: Historical Perspectives on Child Murder and Concealment, 1550-2000. Ed. Mark Jackson. Hants: Ashgate, 2002. 35-51.Francus, Marilyn. "Monstrous Mothers, Monstrous Societies: Infanticide and the Rule of Law in Restoration and Eighteenth-Century England." Eighteenth-Century Life 21.2 (1997): 133-56. Gardiner, Amanda. "Sex, Death and Desperation: Infanticide, Neonaticide and Concealment of Birth in Colonial Western Australia." Dissertation. Perth, WA: Edith Cowan University, 2014.Gowing, Laura. "Secret Births and Infanticide in Seventeenth-Century England." Past & Present 156 (1997): 87-115. Hoffer, Peter C., and N.E.H. Hull. Murdering Mothers: Infanticide in England and New England 1558-1803. New York: New York University Press, 1984. Independent.ie. "Irish Woman Facing Up to Two Years in Jail for Concealing Death of Her Baby in Australia." 8 Aug. 2014. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. "Chapter 3: Manslaughter and Other Homicide Offences." Review of the Law of Homicide: Final Report. Perth: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2007. 85-117.Lee, Sally. "Irish Backpacker Charged over the Death of a Baby She Gave Birth to While Travelling in the Australia [sic] Outback." Daily Mail 8 Aug. 2014. Legal Online. "The Laws of Australia." Thomson Reuters 2010. McMahon, Vanessa. Murder in Shakespeare's England. London: Hambledon and London, 2004. Meyer, Jon'a. "Unintended Consequences for the Youngest Victims: The Role of Law in Encouraging Neonaticide from the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries." Criminal Justice Studies 18.3 (2005): 237-54. O'Donovan, K. "The Medicalisation of Infanticide." Criminal Law Review (May 1984): 259-64. Osborne, Judith A. "The Crime of Infanticide: Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater." Canadian Journal of Family Law 6 (1987): 47-59. Rapaport, Elizabeth. "Mad Women and Desperate Girls: Infanticide and Child Murder in Law and Myth." Fordham Urban Law Journal 33.2 (2006): 527-69.Rose, Lionel. The Massacre of the Innocents: Infanticide in Britain, 1800-1939. London: Routledge & Kegan, 1986. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. Death without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992. Swain, Shurlee, and Renate Howe. Single Mothers and Their Children: Disposal, Punishment and Survival in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Teichman, Jenny. Illegitimacy: An Examination of Bastardy. Oxford: Cornell University Press, 1982. Toone, William. The Magistrate's Manual: Or a Summary of the Duties and Powers of a Justice of the Peace. 2nd ed. London: Joseph Butterworth and Son, 1817.

South Africa's education management system has undergone a long history of transformation from the promulgation of the Bantu Education Act of 1953 to the realisation of democracy, and in this context, the South Mrican Schools Act (SASA) of l996. Apartheid legislation and the new democratic legislation have had a profound impact on the education leadership and management of schools, in which authoritarian management practices have been replaced by democratic management practices. However, democratic management practices have not yet had a significant effect in the leadership and management of schools, especially in the schools of previously disadvantaged areas. This thesis seeks to examine perceptions held by education stakeholders in the light of the rights of students as stipulated in the discipline provisions of the Schools Act of 1996, in one of the rural high schools in the Northern Region of the Eastern Cape Province. One of the most important discipline provisions is the ban on corporal punishment in schools. My intention in carrying out this research was not to generalise my findings but to understand the experiences and perceptions of the stakeholders in this school regarding the discipline provisions of the SASA. The data suggest that authoritarian education practices, especially corporal punishment, are still a factor in the maintenance of student discipline in this rural school. Stakeholders still believe in the use of corporal punishment as the only way of maintaining discipline and an orderly environment for teaching and learning. Such beliefs, assumptions and values concerning the use of corporal punishment are held by the principal, teachers, students and parents and have not changed since 1996. Beliefs, assumptions and values on the exclusive use of power by the principal on issues of suspension and expulsion are still being held by the above stakeholders in the school. The vision of the SASA that schools become autonomous institutions with democratic leadership and management practices does not seem to be practical because of the centralisation of power in the hands of the Provincial Head of the Education Department. This centralisation of power denies the principal and other stakeholders of the school the power to decide on crucial matters like the expulsion of misbehaving students, because it is the provincial Head who decides on the seriousness of offences committed by misbehaving students and subsequent expulsions. Apart from the location of power in the Provincial Head of the Education Department, the stakeholders of this school are also powerless on expulsion of students, or any other form of punishment because of the implication of the "right" to education in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The education department has to devise programmes that change the beliefs and assumptions of stakeholders on corporal punishment and decision-making on expulsions and suspensions. Unfortunately corporal punishment persists because parents use it in the home and support its use in school. Programmes on alternatives to corporal punishment are required for the smooth implementation of the SASA.

The researcher aimed to investigate the laws and policies regulating the use of corporal punishment in Swaziland schools by benchmarking these against HRL, and to investigate the non-compliance of selected schools in the Hhohho and Manzini regions with these legal prescripts. This was done in the two participating schools in the study. The study employed the qualitative approach, using two cases to source the information from the participants. Interviews and questionnaires were used to collect the data from the participants. The principals and their deputies were interviewed, whilst the teachers and learners responded to questionnaires. The literature review revealed that the teachers tend not to adhere to the prescripts in respect of the abuse of corporal punishment. The literature review focusing on the Swaziland situation brought to light that the teachers go beyond the legal prescripts when administering corporal punishment. The results indicated that in Swaziland corporal punishment is legal while, according to the Human Rights Law, it is a crime. The study indicated that teachers do not adhere to the legal prescripts on corporal punishment. Of the ten requirements for corporal punishment, the teachers complied fully with only two. It was also found that the teachers were not conversant with the legal prescripts. Some of the requirements did not seem viable to them to comply with. The researcher recommended that the Swaziland Constitution be aligned with the Human Rights Law, and that principals monitor the abuse of corporal punishment.
Educational Leadership and Management
M. Ed. (Education Management)

The purpose of this study was to explore various aspects of discipline in secondary schools inter alia the views of educators to changes regarding the behaviour of learners today as compared to the past, the banning of corporal punishment in schools, commitment to provide support, and to elicit alternative methods of maintaining discipline. The study was an exploratory one aiming to bring the views of the educator to the fore in clinical research. It was also undertaken to spur other research into this area. The study was undertaken with educators from the town of Verulam in the north coast of Kwazulu- Natal, South Africa. All secondary schools in the area were targeted. This was a possibility sample as it was peculiar to the context and is valid because it does have resemblance to reality. The sample reflected the remnants of the old apartheid educational structures. Various types of schools were included inclusive of ex -House of Delegates, ex-Department of Education, private and religion-based schools. The sample had semblance of the general educator population. Educators in nine of the secondary schools responded to a questionnaire. The structured questionnaire had a quantitative and qualitative bias. The response rate was 58.3 percent. A statistical package was used to analyse the statistical aspects of the questionnaire. The results of the study indicate that educators believed that the incidents and severity of learner misbehaviour had increased rapidly post 1996. A significantly large number also stated that their superiors (the Department of Education-DOE) have left a void with the banning of corporal punishment by provldinq little or no alternatives to discipline learners. Many respondents believed that their authority was undermined and it affected discipline and hence the culture of teaching and learning. Serious offenders were handed to management of schools. Management in schools were viewed as supportative although there was a call for consistency in the application of the schools' Code of Conduct. Numerous methods of disciplining were suggested with the most popular being getting the parent involved and personal counselling. Sadly, the third popular measure believed to be effective was the use of corporal punishment, albeit it was used by a small percentage of respondents. There was no significant difference in views between male and female respondents. Various extraneous factors influencing poor behaviour were postulated. The learners' background, role of the parent and peer pressure, were viewed as most important. School contextual factors such as large classes and poor resources were also noted. Recommendations for better discipline and disciplinary measures were highlighted. The study called for a review of the Code of Conduct as required by the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996, with the focus being immediacy and relevance of sanctions and the more frequent use of the parent-component, of the Schools' Governing Body, in discipline. A more pro-active stance on the part of the DOE in assisting educators, in disciplinary measures, at grass-root level was recommended. The study also recommended further research into discipline and disciplinary measures at secondary schools.
Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2006.

Through the centuries the parental authority has dwindled from the absolute power of the father to the rights of autonomy of the child. At present in the South African law the parental authority is still largely determined by the common law and can be described as the sum total of rights and obligations which parents enjoy in relation to their children. Guardianship and custody are the separate incidents of parental authority. The Child Care Act 74 of 1983, The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 108 of 1996, The Guardianship Act 192 of 1993, The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996, the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 by South Africa on 16 June 1995 and case law have contributed to increasing limitations on the exercise of parental authority. A balance needs to be found between the parental authority and the rights of the child to ensure that neither is absolute. Parents need to respect the evolving capacities of the child and children need to respect the guidance of the parents.
Jurisprudence
LL.M

The earliest criminal law dealing with children differently from the adult population was that concerned with sexual offences. This chapter explores the changing policies of the law, from the late 19^th century fear of girls being exposed to immorality and boys being exposed to homosexuality, through the more protective 20^th century legislation which nevertheless hung on to old ideas of immorality and criminality, until the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 focused almost (but not quite) exclusively on protection from harm and from exploitation. The chapter then turns to the crime of child cruelty or neglect from its earliest manifestation in the common law to its statutory formulation in Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Act 1889, which, re-enacted in 1937, took on a form that, for all intents and purposes, remains to this day. The last part of the chapter explores the legal basis for the power of corporal punishment – the defence previously available to parents, teachers and some others to a charge of assault of a child, known as “reasonable” chastisement. Its gradual abolition from the 1980s to 2019 is described.