Abstract
Background
Many jurisdictions internationally continue to permit parents to use physical force against children under defences variously termed 'reasonable force', 'lawful correction', or 'domestic discipline'. In Queensland, Australia, this is codified under section 280 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). The appropriateness of such defences is increasingly contested, with child and youth advocates arguing that they effectively decriminalise child abuse, yet little is known about whether community attitudes align with their continued availability.Objective
This study aimed to understand how situational factors and community member characteristics shape attitudes towards the legal defence of domestic discipline and what community members believe constitutes a fair outcome, when a parent is charged with assaulting a child.Participants and setting
A quota-sampled survey of 1662 adults and qualitative focus groups with 58 community members, all residing in Queensland, Australia.Methods
Participants were presented with a vignette describing a parent's use of physical force against an 11-year-old child, with the severity of force, use of an implement, and the child's diagnosis with ADHD experimentally varied. Survey data were analysed using binary logistic regression; focus group data were analysed thematically.Results
After controlling for participant sociodemographics (e.g., age and gender), the predicted probability of a guilty finding rose sharply with the severity of force used, increasing from 7.2% (grabbed hand tightly) to 36.9% (slapped thigh with wooden spoon), and 56.9% (slapped face). Many participants, including several who supported a guilty finding, did not endorse criminal justice intervention, instead favouring parenting support and education. Qualitative findings revealed widespread uncertainty about the threshold between discipline and abuse.Conclusions
Findings reveal a gap between current legal tests and community reasoning, and support reform towards non-punitive, education-focused responses to low-level parental discipline, with implications for jurisdictions internationally that retain similar defences.