British Journal of Social Work (2005) 35, 14111415

doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch369

Response to Beckett, C. (2005) The

Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment
Ban and Child Death Statistics, British
Journal of Social Work, 35(1), pp. 12538
Staffan Janson

Correspondence to Staffan Janson, Division of Public Health, Karlstad University, S-651 88

Karlstad, Sweden. E- mail: Staffan.janson@kau.se

In an earlier issue of this Journal, Chris Beckett discusses the Corporal

Punishment Ban in Sweden and child death statistics (Beckett, 2005). If I
have understood it correctly, Becketts main objective is to prove that there
is no close connection between legal banning of child abuse and a decreas-
ing frequency of child homicides. I will try to elaborate on this problem, but
first I would like to comment on the title of Becketts paper (The Swedish
myth: . . .), which is misleading. This is unfortunate, as Beckett actually is
writing that the myth is produced by people outside Sweden.
In Sweden, we are aware that child homicide figures are low compared
to many other countries and we are happy about that, although we are
not completely satisfied because children are still murdered, although for
different reasonsas Beckett correctly states. When evaluating interna-
tional figures on child deaths due to maltreatment (UNICEF, 2003), figures
that are less than one in 100,000; it is, however, very difficult to reach any
plausible conclusions. The figures from UNICEF (Table 1 in Becketts
paper) are from one single year (2003) and just a few more deaths in small
countries like the Scandinavian countries could alter the figures quite
substantially. I was quite astonished when I first saw the UNICEF figures,
as the lowest figures were reported from countries where awareness and
debate concerning child maltreatment have come into focus late, particu-
larly in comparison with the UK and the Scandinavian countries. Studies on
the prevalence of severe violence towards children from Spain, Greece,
Italy and Ireland published in English are sparse. The few good quality
investigations are quite critical of the official under-reporting of severe child
abuse, particularly against younger children (Bardi and Borgogni-Tarli,
2001; Trogan et al., 2001).

The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
1412 Staffan Janson

Even more concerning in the UNICEF figures is that two neighbouring

countries produce extremely different figures. While Spain produces the lowest
reported figures of child maltreatment related deaths of 0.1 in 100,000, Portugal
reports the highest of 3.7 in 100,000. As far as I can understand, there must be
something wrong with these reports. Some countries are probably sensitive to
suspected maltreatment being behind deaths while others are not. Beckett
accepts these figures as given and suggests that a low teenage birth rate may be
the explanation for a low child homicide rate. This explanation is, however, not
valid for Sweden. Teenage mothering is a risk factor for child neglect, but not
for child murder. In the two in-depth studies of child homicides that have been
produced in Sweden by Somander and Ramner (1991) and by Nordlund
(2004), teenage mothering is not identified as a risk factor for child homicide.
In contrast to Beckett, I think it is very important to clarify the reasons
behind child homicides in order to institute appropriate preventive measures.
In the final report of the National Committee Against Child Abuse to the
Swedish government, we stressed that if Sweden was to continue to have a high
profile in child welfare, detailed investigations of every child homicide in
Sweden should have high priority (SOU, 2001, p. 72). The findings of Soman-
der and Ramner (1991) that the majority of child homicides in Sweden were
not a consequence of escalating child abuse or neglect has recently been
confirmed in a new study of all 258 child homicides (birth to fifteen years)
between 1965 and 1999 in Sweden (Nordlund, 2004). In about 80 per cent of
the cases, there was no evidence that the homicide was a result of problems in
relation to the child. Instead, most cases had a background of inter-parental
conflict, like divorce or conflicts about custody. The children were often killed
together with other family members and in 66 per cent of the homicides, the
offender committed suicide following the killings. In 20 per cent of the
murders, there were indications of low parental love and commitment. It is also
important to note that between 1970 and 2000, child homicides in Sweden have
decreased by 2530 per cent, while adult homicides during the same period
have shown a slight increase. If Nordlunds figures are correct, child homicides
as a consequence of abuse are fifty-one cases over a period of thirty-five years,
which is 1.46 cases yearly in Sweden, corresponding to a figure of 0.1 cases per
100,000 children aged from birth to fifteen years. If every other country in
Europe would make the same investigations of all child homicides, meaningful
international comparisons could be undertaken.
When working for the Swedish Committee against Child Abuse 19982001, I
was responsible for three national representative studies on child maltreatment:
An interview study of parents of 2,000 children aged from birth to seventeen
years (80 per cent response rate).
Classroom questionnaires to 2,250 children aged between eleven and thirteen
years (78 per cent response rate).
A postal questionnaire to 2,500 young Swedes aged twenty years (63 per
cent response rate).
 Response to Beckett, C. (2005) The Swedish Myth 1413

The results of these three investigations have been published in a Swedish

report (Janson, 2001a) and a separate English summary (Janson, 2001b). The
parental study was a replica of a study undertaken in 1980 (Edfeldt, 1985),
which made comparisons over time possible. While 51 per cent of all pre-school
children were punished corporally at least once a year in 1980, this figure had
decreased to 8 per cent in 2000. When looking specifically at the group of
parents who used corporal punishment as a strategy in their childs upbringing,
frequent corporal punishment had reduced by one-third in 2000 compared with
1980. Severe and repeated child maltreatment was estimated to occur in less
than 0.5 per cent of all Swedish children in 2000. Consequently, not only were
many fewer children being punished, but also those who were punished were
exposed to a much lesser degree. There are reasons to believe that the decline
of repeated and severe punishment also decreases the risk of severe intentional
injuries and some deaths due to maltreatment. If, as shown by Somander and
Ramner (1991) and Nordlund (2004), child homicides due to abuse are very
few, our finding of decreasing corporal punishment may, however, be of marginal
importance as a reducing factor of child homicides.
The results of the parental studies were confirmed by our complementary
investigations and local studies performed by other researchers in Sweden. We
were also able to find some older but representative studies on child upbringing
in Sweden that included questions about parental use of corporal punishment.
Finally, there have been national surveys on attitudes to corporal punishment
of children in our country since the 1960s. When these figures are compiled, we
can see a pattern over the last forty years (see Figure 1).
It can be seen from Figure 1 that there is a steady and parallel decline both
in positive attitudes to corporal punishment and reports of corporal punishment

100
90
80
70
60 corp. punishment
percent

50 pos. Attitudes to
40 spanking
30
20
10
0
1960:s 1970:s 1980:s 1990:s about
2000

Figure 1 Corporal punishment of pre-school children by parents at least once a year and positive
attitudes to spanking among Swedish adults 19602000
1414 Staffan Janson

over a forty-year period. The decline is so steep that it is probably one of

the greatest changes in attitudes and behaviour ever seen in adult Swedes.
But my specific point is that these changes had started well before the institu-
tion of the corporal punishment ban in Sweden. When talking to foreign
researchers and politicians, many of them argue that this fact underscores
that the law in itself had no effect on parental attitudes or behaviour. Beckett
is arguing in a similar way when he comments that the decline of child homi-
cides precedes the corporal punishment ban. What the law has meant per se
for the decline of the homicide rate, corporal punishment and attitudes will
never be known for sure. It is, however, important to understand that the
intention of the Swedish Government was to support an ongoing process and
to confirm that the Swedish State has a negative view of the corporal punish-
ment of children. The reasons behind the successive changes in behaviour
and attitudes are complex, of which the law is just a single factor. Other
important factors are probably the development of the welfare state, high
level of parental education and a well functioning maternal and child health
care system, with almost 100 per cent coverage. The fact that most Swedish
pre-school children spend their daytime in well functioning pre-schools is
probably important. This means that pre-school children are regularly
observed by people outside the family, which makes corporal punishment
more difficult to hide.
What worries me most in Becketts paper is that, on the one hand, he tells us
that he is not in favour of corporal punishment but, on the other hand, he puts
much effort into arguing against a ban. His main objections against a ban seem
to be that a law could be looked upon as an unrealistic quick fix and, second,
could tie down already overstretched child protection professionals in enforc-
ing the ban. Both these assumptions rely on misunderstandings. First, the
Swedish corporal punishment ban was one in a series of protective laws that
started in 1928 when teachers were prohibited from physically punishing boys
in secondary schools. It was followed by the prohibition of all corporal punish-
ment in Swedish schools in 1958 and successive changes in parents rights to
punish their children, ending with the final ban in 1979. Second, this law is a
firm recommendation by the state not to punish children while the punishment
itself is regulated by the maltreatment paragraphs in the criminal code. The
main idea behind the law is not to find criminals but to protect children against
maltreatment. When professionals in health care and social work understood
this basic idea, they felt that the law provided a good platform when discussing
with parents different ways of bringing up children. In later years, this has been
particularly important in encounters with immigrant families from cultures
where corporal punishment of children is looked upon as more normal behav-
iour. I have more than thirty years experience as a paediatrician and I have
never met one single professional, whether in health care, social services, the
police forces or at school, who has felt overstretched because of enforcing the
ban. My experience is rather the opposite, that most professionals feel it as a
strength to have the law to lean on.
 Response to Beckett, C. (2005) The Swedish Myth 1415

From a Swedish standpoint, this discussion of the corporal punishment ban

seems quite academic. From a practical point of view, our current problems
are of another nature:
1 While we have convinced the majority of parents not to physically punish
their children, we have to find new ways to influence the small group of
parents who are still dangerous to their children. This is a very difficult
task, as many of these parents have complex problems with drug abuse,
psychiatric illness and relative poverty.
2 Detection of the maltreatment of young children is still discovered late and
the handling of maltreatment in families, particularly by social services, is
not sufficiently professional. This has recently been shown in a Swedish
thesis in child psychiatry (Lindell, 2005).
Swedish schoolchildren regularly discuss the UN Convention of the Rights of
the Child as well as the Swedish Ban. Even older pre-school children are
aware of their right not to be punished. This is an important protective factor
in itself. The great problem in Sweden, as in most other countries, is neglect
in all ages and how to protect the youngest children from abuse, in particular
those under the age of four. Protection from abuse is an important stand-alone
right of the child, whether it has a substantial effect on child homicide or not.

References
Bardi, A. and Borgogni-Tarli, S. (2001) A survey of on parentchild conflict resolution:
Intrafamily violence in Italy, Child Abuse Neglect, 25(6), pp. 83953.
Beckett, C. (2005) The Swedish myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and child death
statistics, British Journal of Social Work, 35(1), pp. 12538.
Edfeldt, . (1985) A Final Report from the SUSA-Project on Corporal Punishment and
Domestic Violence (in Swedish only), Stockholm, Proprius book company.
Janson, S. (2001a) Barn Och Misshandel, Swedish Committee on Child Abuse and
Related Issues, Stockholm, Official Public Swedish Investigations SOU, p. 18.
Janson, S. (2001b) Children and Abuse: Corporal Punishments and Other Forms of Child
Abuse in Sweden at the End of the Second Millennium, Stockholm, Ministry of Social
Affairs.
Lindell, C. (2005) Child physical abuse: Reports and interventions, Thesis, Division of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Linkping University, Sweden.
Nordlund, J. (2004) Evolutionary hypotheses and patterns of parental child homicide,
Thesis, Stockholm, University of Stockholm Department of Zoology Report, p. 5.
Swedish Committee on Child Abuse and Related Issuses (2001) Child Abuse: To Prevent
and Act, Final report, Stockholm, Official Swedish Public Investigations SOU, p. 72.
Trogan, I., Dessypris, N., Moustaki, M. and Petridou, E. (2001) How common is child
abuse in Greece? Studying cases with femoral fractures, Archives of the Diseases of
Childhood., 85, pp. 28992.