Summary of law reform necessary to achieve full prohibition

Prohibition is still to be achieved in the home, penal institutions and alternative care settings.

The right of a parent, teacher or other person to punish a child is confirmed in the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act (article 6), the Families and Children (Child Abuse) (Reporting) Regulations 1999 allows for “reasonable disciplinary measures” (article 2), and the Criminal Code provides for the use of force “for the purpose of correction” (article 39). These provisions should be repealed, and the law should clearly state that all forms of corporal punishment and other cruel and degrading treatment are unacceptable, including by parents and others with parental authority.

All provisions authorising corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in institutions should be repealed and explicit prohibition enacted in relation to disciplinary corporal punishment in all institutions accommodating children in conflict with the law. Explicit prohibition should also be enacted in legislation applicable to all alternative care settings, including public and private day care, residential institutions, foster care, etc.

Current legality of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home under provisions for “justifiable force” in the Criminal Code 1981. Article 39 states that “a blow or other force not in any case extending to a wound or grievous harm may be justified for the purpose of correction” but that “no correction can be justified which is unreasonable in kind or in degree, regard being had to the age and physical and mental condition of the person on whom it is inflicted, and no correction can be justified in the case of a person who, by reason of tender years or otherwise, is incapable of understanding the purpose for which it is inflicted”. The Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act 1953 states in article 6: “Nothing in the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, shall be construed to take away or affect the right of the parent, teacher or other person having the lawful control or charge of a child or young person to administer punishment to him.” The Families and Children (Child Abuse) (Reporting) Regulations 1999 (article 2) state that “reasonable disciplinary measures” do not constitute abuse if they are administered “reasonably and in moderation, and do not cause physical, psychological or emotional harm or injury to the child”. Provisions against violence and abuse in the Domestic Violence Act 2007 and the Families and Children Act 1998 (amended 2000) are not interpreted as prohibiting corporal punishment in childrearing.

The Government accepted recommendations to review legislation with a view to prohibiting all corporal punishment made during its Universal Periodic Review in 2009 (18 September 2009, A/HRC/12/4/Add.1, Report of the working group: Addendum, para. 32). However, the Government reported to the Human Rights Committee in 2013 that there had been no initiative to repeal the provision in the Criminal Code which allows corporal punishment ([n.d.], Reply to list of issues, para. 57).

Schools

Corporal punishment is prohibited in schools in articles 50(2) and 51(4) of the Education and Training Act 2010: “50(2) School authorities shall ensure that pupils are free at school from physical, sexual or other forms of harassment, from intimidation and corporal punishment…. 51(4) … nothing in the statement of general principles and measures or measures for regulating the conduct of students shall authorise anything to be done in relation to a student which constitutes harassment, intimidation, the administering of corporal punishment or any other actions harmful to a student.” The prohibition came into force on 6 May 2011, after Minister of Education Patrick Faber signed Statutory Instrument 40, thus lifting a 15-month suspension which had been imposed on these provisions pending the work of a Task Force on implementing the prohibition and introducing alternatives to corporal punishment in schools.

Penal system

Corporal punishment is prohibited as a sentence for crime in the Abolition of Judicial Corporal Punishment Act 1978.

Corporal punishment is lawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions under the Prison Rules 2000 (Rules 38, 52, 53, 56 and 170), the Certified Institutions (Children’s Reformation) Rules 1990 (articles 11 and 13) and the delegation of parental authority to those with custody of young offenders under article 14 of the Juvenile Offenders Act 1936. The Criminal Code 1981 allows law enforcement officials to use “any necessary force not extending to a blow, wound or grievous harm” (article 35). Corporal punishment is prohibited in the “Youth Hostel” detention centre by the Social Service Agencies (Operators of Residential Care Facilities for Children) (Registration, Licensing and Minimum Operating Requirements) Regulations 2004.

Alternative care

Corporal punishment is prohibited in residential care facilities by the Social Service Agencies (Operators of Residential Care Facilities for Children) (Registration, Licensing and Minimum Operating Requirements) Regulations 2004. It is prohibited in day care centres by the Social Service Agencies (Operators of Day Care Facilities) (Registration, Licensing and Minimum Operating Requirements) (Regulations) 1998 (section 15).

Prevalence research

According to statistics collected under round 4 of the UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey programme (MICS4), 70.5% of children aged 2-14 experienced violent “discipline” (physical punishment and/or psychological aggression) in 2010. More than half (56.9%) experienced physical punishment, while a much smaller percentage (26.2%) of mothers and caregivers thought that physical punishment was necessary in childrearing. Five per cent of children experienced severe physical punishment (being hit or slapped on the face, head or ears or being hit over and over with an implement) and 53.9% experienced psychological aggression (being shouted at, yelled at, screamed at or insulted). (Statistical Institute of Belize (2012), Belize Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2011 Final Report, UNICEF)

A UNICEF report published in 2010 states that 70% of children aged 2-14 experienced violent “discipline” (physical punishment and/or psychological aggression) in 2005-2006. Nearly 60% experienced physical punishment, while a much smaller percentage (26%) of mothers and caregivers thought that physical punishment was necessary in childrearing; non-violent discipline was also widely used, experienced by 93% of children. Eight per cent of children experienced severe physical punishment (being hit or slapped on the face, head or ears or being hit over and over with an implement) and 53% experienced psychological aggression (being shouted at, yelled at, screamed at or insulted). No significant differences in children’s experience of violent discipline were found according to sex, age, household size, level of education of adults in the household, or engagement in child labour. (UNICEF (2010), Child Disciplinary Practices at Home: Evidence from a Range of Low- and Middle-Income Countries, NY: UNICEF)

According to statistics from UNICEF on violence in the family, in 2005-2006 children with disabilities were more likely to experience severe physical punishment: 9% of disabled children aged 2-9 were hit or slapped on the face, head or ears or hit over and over as hard as possible with an implement, compared with 4% of non-disabled children. Twelve per cent of girls and women aged 15-49 thought that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances. (UNICEF (2009), Progress for Children: A report card on child protection, NY: UNICEF)

In a study involving questionnaires with 292 children aged 7-15, 91% of 7-10 year olds had been “lashed” at home and/or at school; 87.7% said they were still being punished in this way. The most commonly used implement was a belt (59.9%), followed by a slipper (42.2%), a rope (16.4%), a ruler (11.9%) and a stick (11.3%). Some of the children were scarred by the beatings. Of children aged 11-15 years, 97% said that corporal punishment had been or was still being inflicted at home and school, including being made to kneel on bottle stoppers and being hit on the head. More than two thirds (69%) considered corporal punishment to be cruel and inhumane and a similar number said that when they were physically punished they felt hurt, shameful, fearful, upset, vexed, bad, angry and resentful. In focus group discussions with 87 children, children explained that they were told by their parents and teachers they were being punished out of love and that this led some of them to believe adults were right to physically punish them. Nonetheless, 45% of children thought corporal punishment was wrong and ineffective. Children said they could not learn when threatened by corporal punishment and would not use corporal punishment when they are adults. (National Organization for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (2005), Corporal punishment – A situational analysis, Belize: NOPCAN)

A 2004 study involving 1,475 5-12 year olds found that on average 57% of them had been “lashed” at home or knew someone who had been “lashed”. Of those who were hit, 91% said they were hit “hard” and 9% “softly”. (Rosberg, M. (2004), Belize Study: Impact of Crime and Violence on Children and Adolescents, Community Rehabilitation Department, Ministry of Human Development & UNICEF)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“The Committee notes with satisfaction that various concerns and recommendations (CRC/C/15/Add.99) made upon the consideration of the State party’s initial report (CRC/C/3/Add.46) have been addressed through legislative measures and policies. However, some of the concerns it expressed and recommendations it had made regarding, inter alia, ... the prohibition of corporal punishment (para.19) ... have not been sufficiently addressed.

While noting the awareness-raising campaigns and the promotion of alternative methods of discipline, the Committee reiterates its deep concern that corporal punishment is still frequently practised in the family, in schools and in other institutions, that domestic legislation does not prohibit the use of corporal punishment and that the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Education Act legitimize the use of it.

“The Committee, reiterating its previous recommendation, urges the State party:

1. to critically review its current legislation with a view to abolishing the use of force for the purpose of correction and to introduce new legislation prohibiting all forms of corporal punishment of children in the family and within all institutions, including schools and the alternative care system;
2. to extend and strengthen public education and social mobilization campaigns on alternative non-violent forms of discipline and child-rearing, with the participation of children, in order to change public attitudes to corporal punishment and to strengthen its cooperation with the NGOs in this respect;
3. to seek international technical assistance from, among others, UNICEF in this regard.”
   

(31 March 2005, CRC/C/15/Add.252, Concluding observations on second report, paras. 7, 40 and 41)

“The Committee expresses grave concern that corporal punishment is still widely practised within the State party and that domestic legislation does not prohibit its use within schools, the family, the juvenile justice and alternative care systems and generally within the society. In this regard, the Committee recommends that the State party take all appropriate measures, including of a legislative nature, to prohibit corporal punishment within school, the family, the juvenile justice and alternative care systems and generally within the society. It further suggests that awareness-raising campaigns be conducted to ensure that alternative forms of discipline are administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the Convention, especially article 28.2.”
(10 May 1999, CRC/C/15/Add.99, Concluding observations on initial report, para. 19)

Human Rights Committee

“While welcoming the enactment of the Education and Training Act of 2010, which prohibits corporal punishment in schools, the Committee remains concerned that corporal punishment remains lawful under the Criminal Code. The Committee regrets the State party’s response in the replies to the list of issues that there has never been an initiative to repeal the provision in the Criminal Code which permits corporal punishment (arts. 7 and 24).

The State party should take practical steps to put an end to corporal punishment in all settings. In this regard, the State party should repeal the provisions of the Criminal Code, which permit the use of corporal punishment. The State party should act vigorously to prevent any use of corporal punishment under the Criminal Code as a form of punishment for criminal offences until it repeals the provisions in the Criminal Code.”
([March 2013], CCPR/C/BLZ/CO/1 Advance Unedited Version, Concluding observations in the absence of a report, para. 18)

Universal Periodic Review

Belize was examined in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review in 2009 (session 5). During the review the Government stated that the issue of corporal punishment of children “merits thorough national debate”, that it had already been abolished in children’s institutions and that abolition in schools was in progress (4 June 2009, A/HRC/12/4, Report of the working group, para. 63). The following recommendations were made (4 June 2009, A/HRC/12/4, Report of the working group, paras. 67(30) and 68(7)):

“Review its legislation with a view to prohibiting all forms of corporal punishment of children (Slovenia);

“Abolish corporal punishment for children (Germany)”

The Government accepted the recommendations, stating (18 September 2009, A/HRC/12/4/Add.1, Report of the working group: Addendum, para. 32): “Government has instituted strict limitations to the use of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment has been abolished from all child care institutions, and the relevant authorities are actively exploring measures to effect the complete abolition of corporal punishment.”

Examination in the second cycle is scheduled for 2013.