Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Tawse
View on Wikipedia

| Part of a series on |
| Corporal punishment |
|---|
| By place |
| By implementation |
| By country |
| Court cases |
| Politics |
| Campaigns against corporal punishment |
The tawse, sometimes formerly spelled taws (the plural of Scots taw, a thong of a whip), is an implement for corporal punishment applied either to the buttocks (see spanking) or the palm of the hand (known as hand tawsing). The tawse is a leather strap that has one end split into one or more prongs. A spanking administered with a tawse is technically known as tawsing, although the terms strapping and belting may be used to describe it.
The general sensation from a tawsing is a stinging that gives way to more notable burning and throbbing pain, however the exact experience will be influenced by factors such as: the number of strokes administered, the speed at which the strokes are administered, the force behind the strokes, the thickness of the tawse itself (with a thicker tawse typically resulting in greater intensity), and the individual's pain tolerance.
The tawse is associated with Scotland, particularly in educational discipline, but it was also used in schools in a few English cities, e.g., Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead, Liverpool, Manchester and Walsall. In this British educational context, the official name "tawse" was hardly ever used in conversation by either teachers or pupils, who instead referred to it as either the school strap or the belt.
Tawsing can be done as a consensual activity between adults as part of erotic spanking, a form of impact play.
Schools
[edit]Scottish state (public) schools used the tawse to punish pupils of either sex on the palm of the outstretched hand. Pupils were usually instructed to hold out one hand, palm uppermost, supported by the other hand below, which made it difficult to move the hand away during the infliction of the strokes. It also ensured that the full force of each stroke was taken by the hand being strapped. The punishment was usually inflicted by the class teacher in front of the entire class, to act as a deterrent to others; sometimes by a designated teacher, such as the Deputy Headmaster, to whom the pupil was sent.
This was wielded in primary as well as secondary schools for both trivial and serious offences, and girls got belted as well as boys.[1] Nearly 6 in 10 girls were strapped in school.[citation needed]
In Walsall and Gateshead, and in some schools in Manchester and Nottingham, students (mainly male) were tawsed on the seat of the trousers.
Some Scottish private (independent) schools also used the tawse, such as Keil School. St Aloysius' College, Glasgow used the ferula, a thin strip of metal covered in rubber, but others such as Fettes College used the cane instead, as did most schools in England outside the north-east.
In 1982, two Scottish mothers went to the European Court of Human Rights, who passed a judgment that parents had the right to refuse corporal punishment of a child.[2] This judgement led indirectly to the use of the tawse (and all other forms of corporal punishment) being banned by law in UK state schools. The legislation came into force in 1987, but most Scottish local education authorities had already abolished it by the early 1980s.
John J. Dick Leather Goods was a manufacturer in Lochgelly estimated to have made around 70% of tawses when they were used in schools.[3][4] Original tawses sold for around £6 in 1982 but twenty years later, some collectors were paying hundreds of pounds each for rare items.[5]
Judicial
[edit]The tawse was also used for judicial corporal punishment in Scotland as an alternative to the more usual birch. Courts could sentence boys of over 14 but under 16 to up to 36 strokes with an extra-heavy tawse for any offence. This was administered to the offender's bare buttocks. Judicial corporal punishment was abolished in 1948.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Scottish Review: Carol Craig". www.scottishreview.net. Archived from the original on 12 February 2020. Retrieved 17 March 2020.
- ^ Linklater, John (26 February 1982). "Victor in belt case set to sue". The Glasgow Herald. p. 1. Archived from the original on 23 March 2022. Retrieved 28 January 2017.
- ^ "How the tawse left its mark on Scottish pupils". BBC News. 22 February 2017. Retrieved 13 March 2017.
- ^ Making the Lochgelly Tawse. BBC. 20 February 2017. Retrieved 13 March 2017.
- ^ "Cash-strapped teachers offer shy collectors six of the best". The Scotsman. Edinburgh. 25 August 2002. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
Sources and external links
[edit]- The Cane and the Tawse in Scottish Schools, article at World Corporal Punishment Research
- "The Belt (Factsheet 12)" (PDF). Heatherbank Museum of Social Work. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 June 2010. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
- The True History of the Lochgelly Tawse Archived 6 September 2019 at the Wayback Machine
Tawse
View on GrokipediaDescription and Etymology
Origins of the Term
The term tawse derives from Scots, functioning as the plural of the obsolete noun taw, which denoted a thong or strip of tawed leather—a material prepared through a process of softening hides using alum and other agents to render them supple for use in straps or whips. This etymological root traces back to Old English tawian, meaning "to prepare" or "to dress" leather, reflecting the implement's construction from processed hide split into multiple tails. The word's earliest documented appearances date to the early 16th century, initially describing leather thongs in a general sense rather than exclusively punitive tools.[3][1][8] By the late 16th century, tawse had entered common Scots usage to signify the thongs of a whip, aligning with its emerging role in disciplinary contexts, though textual evidence from Scottish legal and educational records does not consistently link it to corporal punishment until the 18th century. Dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary record the verb form to tawse (meaning to flog with a tawse) from 1790 onward, indicating the term's specialization in punitive application over time. This evolution underscores the word's origins in everyday leatherworking terminology before its institutional adoption in Scotland's educational and judicial systems.[9][10]Physical Characteristics and Construction
The tawse consists of a long, thick strap made from leather or hide, designed with a slightly waisted section to enhance flexibility during use.[11] This construction allows the implement to deliver sharp, stinging blows while maintaining durability. The material is typically sourced from dry-tanned leather, processed to resist cracking and retain both stiffness and pliability.[7] At one end, the strap features a solid handle for grip, while the opposite end is split lengthwise into multiple tails, most commonly two or three, though variations with more exist.[12] The tails, often fringed, increase the surface area of impact and intensify the sensation upon striking. Historical examples from Lochgelly manufacturers, such as John J. Dick Leather Goods, measured approximately 48-60 cm in total length, 3.5-6.3 cm in width, and 4-6 mm in thickness, proportions that balanced control and force.[13][14] Construction traditionally involved hand-cutting a single piece of belt leather and fringing the tails, a process performed by artisans in Lochgelly, Fife, until mechanization in the 1970s streamlined production.[15] Lochgelly became synonymous with the tawse due to firms like John J. Dick, which by the mid-20th century produced variants including nine different models by 1966, often marked with the maker's name and size indicators like "M" for medium.[16][17] These tawses were crafted to withstand repeated use in institutional settings, with the leather's quality ensuring longevity despite the physical demands of corporal punishment.[18]Historical Development
Early Origins and Pre-Modern Use
The tawse emerged in Scotland during the 16th century as a leather strap or thong used for corporal punishment, deriving its name from the Scots term "taws," the plural of "taw," denoting a strip of leather or whip thong.[19] This etymology traces to the verb "taw," meaning to beat, thrash, or prepare hides by stretching and softening, reflecting the implement's construction from tanned leather split into tails for increased sting upon impact.[3] Early forms were rudimentary belts or straps, not yet standardized, and served domestic, educational, and occasional judicial purposes, predating the industrial production associated with Lochgelly in the 19th century.[20] In pre-modern Scotland, from the 16th to 18th centuries, the tawse was applied primarily to enforce discipline in homes and rudimentary schools, targeting children's hands or buttocks for infractions like disobedience or tardiness.[10] Unlike the birch rod common in England, the tawse's flexible, multi-tailed design allowed for quick administration by parents or teachers, embedding it in everyday child-rearing and early education amid sparse formal schooling systems.[6] Judicial use supplemented birching for adolescent offenders, with courts opting for tawsing boys over 14 as a less lethal alternative, though exact sentencing frequencies remain undocumented in surviving records.[20] This practice aligned with broader European corporal traditions but was distinctly Scottish in nomenclature and preference for leather over wood, persisting informally before institutional codification.[21]Institutionalization in 19th-Century Scotland
The tawse became entrenched as the standard implement for corporal punishment in Scottish schools during the 19th century, aligning with broader efforts to enforce discipline in an expanding educational framework. By the mid-1800s, its use was legally tolerated for moderate chastisement, as affirmed in the 1848 court case McKarsie vs. Dickson in Auchtermuchty, where educators were permitted to apply physical correction deemed reasonable.[7] This customary practice gained institutional footing amid the professionalization of teaching and the push for uniform standards in parochial and burgh schools.[6] The Education (Scotland) Act 1872 accelerated institutionalization by mandating attendance for children aged 5 to 13 and creating elected school boards to oversee local education, including disciplinary measures.[7] These boards formalized rules on punishment, embedding the tawse—typically a leather strap split into tails for increased sting—as the preferred tool for addressing infractions like disobedience or poor performance, often administered publicly to deter others.[6] Influenced by cases like the 1860 Hopley incident in England, Scottish educators standardized hand-strapping to avoid excessive severity, though frequency remained high in daily classroom management.[7] [10] Production innovations further solidified its role, with Lochgelly in Fife emerging as a manufacturing hub around 1884, when saddler Robert Philp designed a two-thonged version for his pupil-teacher children at East Public School, prompting orders from fellow educators nationwide.[7] This localization of supply ensured availability and uniformity, transforming the tawse from ad hoc leather straps into a purpose-built institutional staple across Scotland's state-supported schools.[10] By the late 19th century, its pervasive application underscored the system's reliance on immediate, tangible deterrence to uphold order in growing, compulsory cohorts.[6]Educational Applications
Implementation in Scottish Schools
The tawse served as the primary instrument of corporal punishment in Scottish schools, administered by teachers to enforce discipline for offenses ranging from minor infractions like talking in class to more serious misconduct. Typically delivered to the palms of students' hands, it was applied to both boys and girls across primary and secondary education levels, often in view of the class to reinforce deterrence. Teachers carried the tawse as an essential tool of their profession, with its use embedded in daily school routines from the late 19th century onward.[10][6] Regulations governing its implementation evolved over time, with the 1968 Code of Practice designating the tawse—commonly called "the belt"—as the sole authorized implement for such punishment in schools, prohibiting alternatives like canes or slippers. Local education authorities occasionally imposed restrictions, such as requiring administration only by head teachers for certain offenses, but enforcement varied. In residential or special schools, guidelines mandated a "light tawse" and forbade striking other body parts, reflecting attempts to standardize and limit severity.[6][22] Implementation persisted widely until legal challenges prompted abolition. A landmark 1982 European Court of Human Rights ruling in Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom, brought by Scottish parents objecting to the practice, affirmed that refusing corporal punishment did not violate school discipline rights, paving the way for bans. Lothian Region Council enacted the first local prohibition on April 2, 1982, followed by national legislation banning it in state schools effective October 1987, while independent schools retained it until 1998.[7][4]Techniques of Administration
The tawse, often referred to as "the belt" in Scottish schools, was primarily administered by striking the upturned palms of the pupil's hands. The recipient typically extended both arms forward with palms facing upward and fingers held together or slightly separated to present a flat surface for impact. The teacher or headmaster delivered strokes using a full arm swing to ensure forceful contact, with the number of lashes varying by offense severity—commonly one to six strokes for minor infractions, though more severe cases could involve up to a dozen or public floggings with additional implements. This method was standard in state schools following the 1968 Code of Practice, which mandated hand-only application to minimize injury, and was usually performed in front of the class to amplify disciplinary effect through public exposure.[6][7] Variations included application to the buttocks or legs, particularly in earlier periods or when regulations were disregarded. For such punishments, the pupil might bend over a desk, bench, or be "horsed" across the shoulders or lap of a classmate or teacher, with strikes delivered over clothing to the posterior. These alternatives were less common after 1968 but persisted in some institutions, including private schools where senior pupils occasionally administered the tawse. The Lochgelly tawse, the predominant variant, featured split tails edged to produce raised welts without typically drawing blood when technique was correct, emphasizing controlled force over excessive violence.[6][10] Administration emphasized precision to align with disciplinary goals rather than gratuitous harm, though surveys indicated high frequency: in 1977, 36% of boys aged 12-15 reported receiving the tawse at least once every 10 days. Official guidelines prohibited excessive force, but enforcement varied, with some teachers employing wrist flicks for lighter strokes or fuller swings for emphasis. Both male and female pupils received this punishment equally, reflecting its institutional normalization in Scottish education until abolition.[6][6]Disciplinary Outcomes and Effectiveness
The tawse was administered in Scottish schools primarily to elicit immediate compliance and deter repetition of infractions such as talking out of turn, disobedience, or tardiness, with historical accounts from mid-20th-century educators and pupils indicating that its threat and application often resulted in subdued classroom environments and reduced overt disruptions during lesson times.[10] For example, teachers reported using it routinely—sometimes multiple times per day across classes—to enforce rules, leading to what contemporaries described as a "strict atmosphere" where fear of the strap minimized challenges to authority.[6] Such outcomes aligned with basic operant conditioning principles, where immediate painful stimuli suppressed targeted behaviors in the short term, particularly when consistently applied to the palms in view of peers to amplify humiliation and deterrence.[23] Notwithstanding these proximate effects, no longitudinal studies directly assess the tawse's capacity to produce enduring reductions in misbehavior or enhancements in self-regulation among recipients. Anecdotal evidence from Scottish school records and memoirs suggests recidivism persisted among habitual offenders, with some pupils adapting by concealing infractions rather than internalizing norms, potentially fostering resentment toward authority figures.[10] Broader empirical research on school corporal punishment, applicable by analogy to the tawse given its similar mechanism of physical pain for disciplinary ends, reveals limited effectiveness for positive behavioral modification. A 2002 meta-analysis by Gershoff synthesizing 88 studies across decades found consistent associations between corporal punishment and 11 adverse child outcomes, including elevated aggression, antisocial conduct, and weakened adult mental health, but no links to improved compliance or moral development.[24] A subsequent 2016 meta-analysis by Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor, drawing on 75 studies involving over 160,000 participants, confirmed these patterns, showing physical punishment prospectively predicts behavioral deterioration rather than sustained discipline, with effect sizes indicating modest short-term suppression overshadowed by long-term risks like increased defiance.[25] Longitudinal data further imply that while punishment may temporarily lower disruption rates, it fails to address causal factors such as unmet needs or poor instruction, often yielding rebound effects.[26] In Scotland specifically, post-1987 abolition surveys noted rising teacher-reported indiscipline—such as verbal disruptions and non-attendance—contrasting with the tawse era's perceived orderliness, though these trends confound with broader societal shifts like expanded pupil rights and curriculum changes, precluding definitive attribution.[27] Proponents of moderate corporal methods have contended, based on behavioral theory, that tools like the tawse could outperform verbal reprimands in high-disruption contexts if calibrated to avoid excess, citing immediate feedback loops for habit formation.[28] Yet, controlled educational trials consistently favor non-aversive strategies, such as positive reinforcement, for verifiable gains in prosocial behavior and academic engagement, underscoring the tawse's alignment with transient control over transformative discipline.[29]Judicial Applications
Legal Authorization and Framework
The judicial application of the tawse in Scotland was authorized under the common law powers of sheriffs and district courts to impose corporal punishment on juvenile offenders as a sentencing option for certain crimes.[30] This framework allowed sentences of up to 36 strokes with a heavy tawse, typically delivered on the bare buttocks, for boys aged 14 to 16, serving as an alternative to the more prevalent birch rod used in England and Wales.[31][30] Such punishments were administered by court officials or designated personnel immediately following sentencing, reflecting a customary practice rather than explicit statutory codification, though bounded by the general principles of the law of assault which permitted judicially sanctioned physical correction without constituting battery.[32] The tawse's use in this context was discretionary, applied to offenses like theft or vandalism where deterrence was prioritized over incarceration for young males, but excluded girls and those under 14 or over 16 to align with age-based sentencing limits.[30] No formal regulations specified the exact instrument beyond its heavy construction for effective impact, distinguishing it from lighter educational variants.[31] This authorization persisted until 1948, when legislative reforms eliminated sheriffs' ability to order corporal punishments like the tawse or birch, shifting toward rehabilitative measures amid growing inefficacy concerns.[7][30] Post-1948, any residual judicial corporal punishment powers were fully curtailed, with no recorded instances of tawse sentencing thereafter.[30]Sentencing Practices and Examples
In Scottish judicial practice, the tawse was authorized for corporal punishment primarily against juvenile male offenders aged 14 to 16 years, serving as a discretionary alternative to fines, probation, or short-term detention for offenses such as theft, vandalism, or minor assaults.[33] Sheriffs in sheriff courts held the authority to impose such sentences, guided by statutes permitting corporal punishment for young offenders deemed capable of reform through physical discipline rather than incarceration, though the birch rod was more frequently selected over the tawse for its perceived severity. The instrument used was an extra-heavy tawse, designed for greater impact, and administration occurred on the bare buttocks to maximize pain and deterrence, typically by a court-appointed officer in a controlled setting like a police station or prison annex.[33] Sentencing typically specified the number of strokes, ranging from 6 to 12 for lesser infractions up to the statutory maximum of 36 for graver cases, with judges considering factors such as the offender's prior record, age proximity to adulthood, and the offense's circumstances to calibrate severity. Medical examination was sometimes required beforehand to ensure the recipient could withstand the punishment without undue risk, reflecting a nominal concern for proportionality amid broader penal philosophies favoring retribution and exemplarity for youth crime.[30] No appeals specifically on tawse sentencing grounds were commonly recorded, as corporal options were embedded in juvenile justice frameworks until post-World War II reforms emphasized rehabilitation over physical penalties. Specific documented examples of tawse sentences are scarce in historical records, likely due to the practice's infrequency compared to schooling applications and the preference for birching in judicial contexts; however, sheriffs routinely invoked the tawse for persistent petty offenders in urban burgh courts during the early 20th century, such as in Glasgow or Edinburgh, where sentences of 12 to 24 strokes were noted in police burgh reports for truancy-related crimes or public disorder.[33] The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act effectively abolished all judicial corporal punishment, including tawsing, on January 1, 1949, following parliamentary debates highlighting its inefficacy as a deterrent and alignment with emerging human rights standards.[30]Controversies and Debates
Arguments Supporting Use
Proponents of the tawse argued that it provided an immediate and effective means of enforcing classroom discipline, particularly in the resource-constrained environments of Scottish schools where large class sizes—often exceeding 40 pupils—prevailed in the mid-20th century.[10] By delivering swift physical correction for infractions such as talking out of turn or disrupting lessons, the tawse minimized disruptions, allowing teachers to maintain focus on instruction rather than prolonged verbal reprimands or alternative sanctions that could escalate conflicts.[34] Historical accounts from educators indicate it was viewed as an essential tool for upholding authority, with daily application for minor offenses ensuring a structured atmosphere conducive to learning.[6] The tawse's deterrent effect was cited as a primary benefit, fostering self-control and respect for rules among pupils through the credible threat of consequences, which proponents claimed reduced recidivism more reliably than non-physical methods available at the time.[35] Teachers and administrators in Scotland, up to its abolition in 1987, maintained that it instilled long-term behavioral improvements by linking misdeeds directly to discomfort, mirroring real-world causal links between actions and outcomes, without requiring extensive administrative involvement.[36] This approach was particularly defended in contexts of persistent truancy or defiance, where evidence from analogous systems showed that the mere presence of such punishment correlated with higher compliance rates, as 22% of pupils in surveyed corporal punishment regimes reported being deterred solely by anticipation of it.[37] Supporters further contended that the tawse contributed to Scotland's historically strong educational outcomes, such as high literacy rates and academic performance in the post-war era, by creating an orderly environment that prioritized merit and effort over negotiation.[38] Unlike verbal or detention-based alternatives, which could be inconsistently enforced or ignored, the tawse's uniformity and finality were seen as promoting equity in discipline, applying equally regardless of background, and preparing students for disciplined societal roles.[6] Post-abolition observations in regions retaining similar practices suggested that its removal sometimes led to increased disorder, reinforcing claims of its practical utility in maintaining institutional stability.[39]Arguments Opposing Use
Opponents of the tawse argued that its use inflicted unnecessary physical pain and risk of injury, such as bruising, welts, or long-term hand damage from repeated strikes on sensitive palm tissue, without proportionate educational benefit.[10] In Scottish schools, where the tawse was applied to upturned palms—often multiple times per incident—critics highlighted the humiliation and immediate dread it induced in children, fostering resentment toward authority rather than respect.[10][7] Historical accounts from former pupils describe the experience as disempowering and degrading, particularly when administered publicly or by teachers who derived personal satisfaction from it, exacerbating emotional distress.[40][41] Empirical studies on corporal punishment, applicable to tawse as a form of physical discipline, link such practices to adverse psychological outcomes, including heightened risks of anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and aggressive behavior in adolescence and adulthood.[42][43] Research indicates that physical punishment like strapping correlates with altered brain activity in regions regulating emotional responses, potentially impairing self-regulation and increasing vulnerability to mental health disorders, with effect sizes comparable to those of more severe abuse.[44][25] In Scotland, where tawse use was documented at rates up to ten times higher than in English schools during the 1970s, opponents contended it masked underlying behavioral issues rather than resolving them, as evidenced by improved child risk identification post-abolition in jurisdictions banning corporal punishment.[45][46] Critics further asserted the tawse's ineffectiveness for sustained discipline, arguing it promoted short-term compliance through fear but failed to teach self-control or moral reasoning, often leading to escalated defiance or cycles of punishment.[47] Scottish educational committees in the 1970s, reviewing tawse practices, recommended its phase-out due to these limitations and the availability of non-violent alternatives like counseling or detention, which data from post-ban periods suggested maintained order without harm.[48] Advocacy groups emphasized that retaining such methods violated evolving child welfare standards, as seen in European peers declaring corporal punishment inhumane decades earlier, prioritizing dignity over outdated retributive approaches.[15]Empirical Evidence on Impacts
Empirical research specifically examining the impacts of the tawse in Scottish schools is limited, with most studies relying on retrospective accounts or broader analyses of corporal punishment (CP) rather than controlled, tawse-focused trials. Available data primarily draw from general CP meta-analyses, which often include school-based strapping or belting, though causation remains debated due to correlational designs, potential reverse causality (e.g., disruptive children receiving more punishment), and confounders like socioeconomic factors.[25][49] Short-term behavioral effects of tawse administration appear to include immediate compliance and deterrence of minor infractions, as reported in teacher surveys from pre-1982 Scotland, where 84% of boys and a smaller proportion of girls experienced it, correlating with perceived classroom order. However, meta-analyses of school CP, including hand-strapping, find no sustained reduction in aggression or disruption; instead, they associate it with heightened immediate defiance in some cases and no superior outcomes compared to non-physical sanctions. Post-abolition observations from Scottish educators indicate increased indiscipline, with teachers reporting diminished authority and rising disruptions shortly after the 1982 ban in state schools, though these are qualitative rather than rigorously quantified.[34][50][51] Long-term outcomes linked to tawse use mirror broader CP findings: prospective studies and meta-reviews associate frequent school CP with elevated risks of externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, antisocial conduct) and internalizing issues (e.g., anxiety, depression) into adolescence and adulthood, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate (r ≈ 0.10–0.20). Cognitive impacts include modestly lower academic performance and school engagement, potentially due to fear-induced avoidance of risk-taking in learning. Critics of these associations, including reanalyses of datasets, argue that effect sizes are comparable to those from inconsistent parenting or verbal reprimands, and mild CP like tawse may not independently predict problems when controlling for family environment; harsh or unpredictable application, however, amplifies risks. Scottish-specific longitudinal data is sparse, but a 2015 review commissioned by child welfare groups concluded physical punishment, including historical school practices, correlates with poorer parent-child relations and moral internalization in later life.[52][53][54]| Outcome Domain | Associated Effects from CP Meta-Analyses (Including School Strapping) | Effect Size Range | Key Caveats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Externalizing Behavior (e.g., aggression) | Increased incidence | r = 0.10–0.18 | Correlational; may reflect pre-existing traits[25] |
| Internalizing Behavior (e.g., mental health) | Higher anxiety/depression risk | r = 0.08–0.15 | Dose-dependent; mild forms less predictive[52] |
| Cognitive/School Performance | Reduced engagement and scores | d = 0.15–0.25 | Confounded by socioeconomic status[50] |
| Moral Development | Weaker internalization of rules | Variable | Short-term compliance vs. long-term autonomy[24] |