Should America spare the rod and spoil the child? This is the question Emily Bazelon asks the reader to consider. Corporal punishment has long been a controversial subject with a tremendous amount of research and evidence on both sides of the spanking debate. In "Hitting Bottom: Why America Should Outlaw Spanking," Bazelon uses hard evidence and other forms of research to argue the pros and cons of the use of corporal punishment and the effect it has on children. .
Bazelon begins by discussing a ban on spanking proposed by Sally Lieber, a California assemblywoman, in January of 2007. Bazelon states, "Little kids may be the most infuriating; they are also the most vulnerable," which is why Lieber's ban would apply only to children under the age of four (743). She explains that Lieber's proposal was not meant to prosecute parents for spanking their children but would make it easier for prosecutors to charge those responsible for child abuse. "Currently California law (and the law of other states) allows for spanking that is reasonable, age appropriate, and does not carry serious risk of injury," forcing judges to decide what is reasonable and what is not and giving parents free rein to cause pain as long as there is no evidence of injury (Bazelon 743). .
The United Nations and the United States of America have very different views on corporal punishment and Bazelon does her best to fairly present the extensive research supporting their different decisions. "The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child has been urging countries to ban corporal punishment since 1996," in the hopes that making it illegal to hit them will make it socially unacceptable to hurt them (Bazelon 744). The United Nations will have a hard time convincing Americans to follow suit. "Its report cites a survey showing that 84 percent of Americans believe that it's, 'sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good hard spanking"' (Bazelon 744).
