Child discipline and the anti smacking law

Forums › Off topic › Child discipline and the anti smacking law

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2383739 1-Jan-2020 21:09

If, after all the debate, it can be shown that as a consequence of the repeal of S59:

(1) parents who previously assaulted children using implements can no longer claim a defence under law, and

(2) parents who occasionally lightly smack or similarly correct their children are not being prosecuted under current law*,

then ...

can someone who wants to appeal the law clearly explain what change they are seeking?

[for the proponents of family first's campaign, it's a return to (1), but they'll never admit it directly. And why do they want it? Because their ancient book authored by men in an ignorant age says it is so].

* despite plenty of opportunity, not one example of an unfair prosecution under current law has been put forward.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2383756 1-Jan-2020 23:02

dafman: can someone who wants to appeal the law clearly explain what change they are seeking?

From what I've read/heard, the one word explanation would be: clarity/certainty.

I agree that parents who occasionally lightly smack are not being prosecuted at present. However, according to the Crimes Act s59 p4, that is entirely at the discretion of the police. I can fully understand that some people would not be comfortable with that discretionary arrangement and would want more clarity/certainty about what is - and is not - acceptable.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2383759 1-Jan-2020 23:06

Technofreak:

Misstatement 2

You say “It was not the stated purpose of the Bill to reduce child abuse.” If this bills aim wasn’t to reduce child abuse then what was its purpose? Do you mind telling me what you think the purpose of the bill was?

Because, as far as I can see there is no other purpose. Some of the reading I have done says ”proponents of the bill say the bill would stop cases of abuse from slipping through the gaps and reduce the infant death rate” . Seems to me at least one of the bills aims was to reduce child abuse.

I note that the amendment itself states its purpose up front:

The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

FineWine

2981 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Nurse (R)

Lifetime subscriber

#2384147 2-Jan-2020 13:05

This thread is going around in circles so I am now "Unwatching" it.❗️

Whilst the difficult we can do immediately, the impossible takes a bit longer. However, miracles you will have to wait for.

BarTender

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2384270 2-Jan-2020 16:56

mm1352000:
dafman: can someone who wants to appeal the law clearly explain what change they are seeking?

From what I've read/heard, the one word explanation would be: clarity/certainty.

I agree that parents who occasionally lightly smack are not being prosecuted at present. However, according to the Crimes Act s59 p4, that is entirely at the discretion of the police. I can fully understand that some people would not be comfortable with that discretionary arrangement and would want more clarity/certainty about what is - and is not - acceptable.

Here is an idea. Don't hit your kids. Then you have nothing to worry about.
If you're looking for clarity on what level of violence is acceptable on your child other than forcibly removing your child out of harms way then I think you are going to be disappointed. There is a reason why discretion is available to the police, since they will exercise it. If you are worried about getting into trouble then just don't hit your kids at all. Much like driving over the speed limit, there is a sure fire way to not get caught and that is not to speed.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2384354 2-Jan-2020 19:43

BarTender: ...other than forcibly removing your child out of harms way...

Surely that is covered by s59 p1, without being affected by parts 2 or 3. It is only force for the purpose of correction that is in question.

BarTender: Here is an idea. Don't hit your kids. Then you have nothing to worry about.

If you're looking for clarity on what level of violence is acceptable on your child... then I think you are going to be disappointed.

Your answer here seems to reflect ideological opposition to the application or threat of force for the purpose of correction. I respect your position. Obviously some people don't share your position for various reasons. My point - without wishing to take sides - is that I don't think it's unreasonable to provide everybody with clarity, as that seems to be in the general interest of everybody.

In particular: if application or threat of force (ie. abuse, according to its legal definition) for the purpose of correction is completely unacceptable in all circumstances (as per s59 p2) then why allow for discretion (as per s59 p4)? Why have this situation where - to use @dafman's words - occasional light smacking - is tacitly acceptable? Why not send a clear signal?

On the one hand, if you oppose the application or threat of force for the purpose of correction then removing discretion removes any doubt. It sends a message that people who rely on application of force must change their parenting style or face prosecution.

On the other hand, if you support the application or threat of minimal, reasonable force for the purpose of correction as a last resort - which I would hazard to guess is/was a reasonably common position - then establishing some boundaries for that would be a good thing.

BarTender: There is a reason why discretion is available to the police, since they will exercise it.

This is exactly my question. What is that reason? I honestly don't understand the utility of s59 p4, and would appreciate elaboration.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2384370 2-Jan-2020 20:58

This is just silly. I'm going to follow @FineWine's example and check out. You are arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No law can ever specifically cover every conceivable contingency. It shouldn't have to. Common sense and police discretion are just fine. If you want to be a bureaucrat, get a job at a ministry.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2384402 2-Jan-2020 22:12

I also agree this thread has run its course, so I'm also checking out for good as well.

In closing, I think this earlier post from @BarTender sums it up perfectly:

BarTender:

Here is an idea. Don't hit your kids. Then you have nothing to worry about.
If you're looking for clarity on what level of violence is acceptable on your child other than forcibly removing your child out of harms way then I think you are going to be disappointed. There is a reason why discretion is available to the police, since they will exercise it. If you are worried about getting into trouble then just don't hit your kids at all. Much like driving over the speed limit, there is a sure fire way to not get caught and that is not to speed.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2386001 6-Jan-2020 13:23

I've don't see a need to physically discipline kids (we have 4). However after >10 years there is still plenty of physical child abuse up to a including murder/manslaughter in NZ.

I would guess the law hasn't resulted in the reduction of serious assaults on kids its proponents predicted.

Mike

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2390285 11-Jan-2020 16:17

Handle9:
dafman:
nunz:

The AS law has stopped appropriate physical disciplines being used. A grandmother prosecuted for grabbing her grand-son by the collar and dragging him back off the road, away from traffic.

On the face of it, seems highly unlikely. Can you provide a link to more information on this?

Despite the wall of words following the OP hasn't provided it. Sounds like nonsense.

Sorry - thought I had found and presented it - it was in the list of prosecutions and investigations listed by Family First

Here is the link: https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/research/smacking-cases/ Many of the rpeorts are an appalling misuse of power, money and time.

I draw your attention to the the following:

Grandmother Warned by Police After Grabbing Grandchild Running onto Road
South Auckland
This grandmother had to prevent her 2 year old grandson from running onto the road by grabbing his arm and pulling him back to the footpath. She was petrified that her grandson could be run over. A police officer witnessed her and said she was breaking the law by grabbing him. She was let off with a warning but was told that if it ever happened again, they would prosecute her. She had recently lost a friend’s child (6) to a train crash. (Takanini) She now puts him in the pram to avoid getting arrested. Her family is horrified by what’s happened and she’s now concerned about taking her grandchildren out in public. She feels she’s been publicly humiliated. Another grandmother came up to her and said she’d been interviewed by the police for giving her 4 year old grandson a smack on the bottom in Countdown for swearing at her. The woman was taken to the police station to be interviewed

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2390287 11-Jan-2020 16:37

nunz:

Here is the link: https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/research/smacking-cases/ Many of the rpeorts are an appalling misuse of power, money and time.

These are anecdotal accounts by an organisation pushing an agenda. They can hardly be relied on as objective reporting. You are bright enough to know that. There may or may not be any truth to them, but I would want to know a hell of lot more before taking any of them seriously.

Apart from that, I truly don't care. The anti-smacking legislation is a good thing. Those opposed to it need to get over themselves. There are far bigger issues in our society.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2390289 11-Jan-2020 16:39

Rikkitic:

Arguing religious belief on any level is descending into a rabbit hole that is beyond my energy and patience. I will confine myself to gently pointing out a logical fallacy in your reasoning, which is to assume that every other believer is as nuanced as you. I don't doubt that your belief doesnt nullify your brain and common sense. But for far too many, religion is an excuse for dogma and intolerance. It is a bulldozer that gets driven through reasoned debate and polite disagreement. That is my objection to it.

Oh be still my beating heart - hang on - let me get over my fit of giggling ....

Why is it that religion is used as a bulldozer to drive through reasonable debate????

Is it because of those pesky Christians - or is it the non religious who use religion to derail reasoned discussion.

Lets take a look at this topic for instance:

The first mention of religion comes in via @BarTender:

Post #7 - https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=261990&page_no=1#2382084
BarTender - Why is it the religious right always seem to get involved in these sorts of crusades able to abuse children ..

He/She uses mentions religion to bag those with a different opinion than him/her self - an Ad hominem attack - and BarTender is not a Christian going by the tenure of the comments.

The second mention is via @Rikkitic - And this is what gives me a fit of giggles - Why does religion get used to derail debate ... ...thats my objection to it(religion)(

Possibly because

Post number 8 : https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=261990&page_no=1#2382090
Rikkitic - The patriarchal nature of Abrahamic religions gives them some bizarre notion of being entitled to smack those smaller and weaker

Again an Ad hominem attack on those who hold differing views - bagging their beliefs - again by a non-christian / non religious person if we take his comments into account.

And third time's the charm: @Dafman At least He/She is more creative with a strawman argument - claiming the bible says things it doesn't

Post number 9 - https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=261990&page_no=1#2382102
Dafman - the god portrayed in the christian fantasy says it is not only OK, but recom...

Why do these discussions get derailed by religion? Well it would seem it is because the A-Theist / AgNostic and those who are down right contemptuous of Christians cant handle a reasoned debate and need to throw Ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments into the mix because actually - they have vey little that's reasoned to say.

Was religion bought into this discussion by the religious? YES - But those who are religiously anti-christian or anti god or anti organized religion.

Its a giggle really - the Christians didn't use the Bible or God or similar to go against this bill - they seem to be arguing it has failed, and failed demonstrably using hard statistics, and it has more than failed - it has actively hurt those who it shouldn't be touching. Those seem like good strong reasoned argument IMHO -

So yes - lets keep religion out of this. You atheists ... Quit talking about God. Lets see if this can be discussed without God coming into it - surely if we Christians can ignore God for this discussion you atheists should be able to as well?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2390290 11-Jan-2020 16:47

Give it a rest, @nunz. You are beating a dead horse. The rest of the world has moved on.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2390296 11-Jan-2020 17:01

dafman:

Rikkitic:

Again, I don't understand how this thread even got started ...

..

So, as frustrating as it is, we need to fight the misinformation, the likes of which we have seen in this thread from Nunz, eg:

false stories of innocent care givers being prosecuted under the law, eg. a grandmother prosecuted for pulling a child out of harms way, and
the often repeated misstatement that "the reason for introducing the law was to reduce child abuse and it has failed." No, the purpose of the Act was to amend the principal Act to abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children. It's that simple.
As an aside, many years ago, and well after she had retired from Parliament, I saw Sue Bradford in Dick Smith in Lambton Quay. I went up to her to pass on a personal thank you on behalf of all children in NZ.

(I know I said I was finished with this thread ... oops).

False stories dealt with in previous post.

I appreciate your point of view re the purpose - and it makes sense if you look at the repealing of reasonable force as a defense .... except by definition reasonable force is well reasonable. It unreasonable force the law should have dealt with.

When you remove a defense of REASONABLE behavior as a defense then what have you got? A black and white law that does nothing to take in the nuances of behavior and situations.

As an example - A man breaks into my house and tries to stab me / rape my wife / kill my kids ... and in the process of restraining / defense I throw him through a glass plate window - which slices him open and he dies.

My defense is one of reasonable force. it is one of state of mind (mens rea - in fear for life) , it is one of what any reasonable person would do. That 's why I wouldn't get charged with murder, - at best manslaughter - and that probably suspended or dismissed as it was a reasonable action with no other recourse.

If reasonable behavior / reasonable force is removed then I get charged with murder - no defense possible - and sent to jail for defending my family from an armed attacker.

If reasonable force is removed from actions with kids then me holding my son down, kicking and screaming his head off - to get a puss filled infection incised before it turns gangrenous within 24 hours and kills him - has no defense and I have assaulted my child. Ooops - I have assaulted my child - and if there is no defense of reasonable force than I am guilty of assault and battery and abuse.

The repeal is an ass that has done nothing to remove harm and done everything to criminalise decent parents.

As for Sue Bradfords reasoning. It WAS to reduce abuse . Two reasons why:

1 - She said so, along with her supporters at many many many meetings.

2 - Quote below - shows it was driven to remove smacking and the removal of abuse - she herself went through. - Her words - not mine. and these are just a few of what she said. It was about the removal of smacking and reduction of 'abuse' and 'assaults'.

<quote>

“My mother may have had good reasons to hit me, but if I knew what they were before the smackings, afterwards all I knew was that I’d been assaulted by someone who had total control of my life. I believe physical punishment either teaches children to use violence to solve problems or… destroys the child’s feelings of self-worth for a very long time. This makes it difficult for that child to become a productive member of society.

“If it is made illegal to smack children, at least parents will think before doing it. I found my own children were surprisingly susceptible to reason at a very early age, if I took the trouble to explain things to them.”

</quote>

Interestingly if she had perused the Berkley studies done before her repeal, in regards to smacking causing violent behaviour or adversely affecting children - then she would have found statistical evidense that it doesnt - when it is reasonable.

Remember reasonabledoesnt jsut cover smacking but also restraint, resistense and rebuke.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2390350 11-Jan-2020 17:53

@nunz. Give. It. A. Rest.

You haven't provided a scrap of empirical evidence that being allowed to hit your children results in better outcomes either mentally, behaviourally, or physically.

You've been told numerous times that despite it being illegal to hit children, discretion not to prosecute has been written into the law such that a light smack will not result in prosecution because the cost outweighs the benefits, but sustained and unreasonable disciplinary force will result in prosecution.

You've even numerous times pulled up this fabricated story of a grandmother being rebuked or prosecuted for restraining a child from running onto the road and now positing that if you hold down your child to have an infection incised you will be prosecuted, despite that in both cases it is not even illegal, because reasonable force for the purpose of protecting the safety of your child and others is explicitly permitted.

You persist in posting unsourced links from Family First to back up your point, despite them not being the most biased possible reference you can find.

It seems like you're just arguing that you want to smack your kids, and you don't like that you can't. Give over, you've lost.

mm1352000:

This is exactly my question. What is that reason? I honestly don't understand the utility of s59 p4, and would appreciate elaboration.

Sigh. It's actually quite simple. The issue is that "reasonable" by definition cannot be measured. If you can somehow convince a jury that whipping a young boy with a jug cord is reasonable, or whipping a young girl with a rubber hose that left marks is reasonable, the previous s59 protected you from prosecution - this actually happened. Removing the defence of "reasonable force for correction" means that if these cases end up in front of a jury again, there is no defence available for the offender, as there shouldn't be. The discretion permits the police to simply disregard an offence on the basis that there is no public interest and significant public cost to prosecuting for a single smack.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8