Don't smack your kids...

[Scuba_Steve]

But they will hit you


Police have warned parents not to take any abuse from unruly teenagers.

Nobody expects hormone-driven teens to be docile but police are reporting a disturbing new trend in their behaviour.

Sergeant Alan McGlade, supervisor of the Hamilton Family Safety Team, said police had noticed a pattern emerging in cases of violence and abuse for the past six to 12 months.

When did the Anti-Smaking law come in again?

More teens attacking parents - Stuff article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4593778/More-teens-attacking-parents-police-say)

[Mully]

I've heard (Second hand, but that'll do for KB) of kids (tweens and teens) hurling abuse at their parents and saying things to the extent of "You can't do anything to me"

My response would be a phonecall to CYFS - "Come take the little fuckers away" - cos CYFS are allowed to kill kids in their care.

CYFS > Sue Bradford's stupid bill.

Check. And Mate. You little turd.

[Smifffy]

I've heard (Second hand, but that'll do for KB) of kids (tweens and teens) hurling abuse at their parents and saying things to the extent of "You can't do anything to me"

My response would be a phonecall to CYFS - "Come take the little fuckers away" - cos CYFS are allowed to kill kids in their care.

CYFS > Sue Bradford's stupid bill.

Check. And Mate. You little turd.

They aren't just allowed to kill kids in their care - it's expected.

Although there are some foster parents that don't meet all of their KPIs in that regard.

[oldguy]

I don't smack kids, i give them a good kick up the ass.

[FJRider]

Self defence your honour ... :msn-wink:

[Genie]

Once again this topic arises...and once again I'll say, 'arrest me'.

I'm going to smack my kids if they so deserve it.

I will not abuse my children but when they get sick of my nagging and don't take kindly to my yelling, then I'll give the little darlings a slap to say, I've had enough.

I too, hate the sound of my screeching so, in order to keep them happy, I'll slap their left thigh, it's the closest to my right hand...though sometimes an ear may get in the way.

I love my children, they are dear to me and to NOT SMACK them is to dishonour them.

[Scuba_Steve]

Once again this topic arises...and once again I'll say, 'arrest me'.

I'm going to smack my kids if they so deserve it.

I will not abuse my children but when they get sick of my nagging and don't take kindly to my yelling, then I'll give the little darlings a slap to say, I've had enough.

I too, hate the sound of my screeching so, in order to keep them happy, I'll slap their left thigh, it's the closest to my right hand...though sometimes an ear may get in the way.

I love my children, they are dear to me and to NOT SMACK them is to dishonour them.

And good on you I think this is how they should be brought up, Its how I was brought up & as far as I'm concerned it creates more respectful/considerate people heres to you :2thumbsup

[Genie]

And good on you I think this is how they should be brought up, Its how I was brought up & as far as I'm concerned it creates more respectful/considerate people heres to you :2thumbsup

Oh , I forgot to say, that in order to keep me happy I need at least 10 hours a week to ride my bike.:scooter:

[riffer]

I find that turning off the wifi hotspot is having a much better result...

[Winston001]

When did the Anti-Smaking law come in again?

More teens attacking parents - Stuff article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4593778/More-teens-attacking-parents-police-say)

Hmm...so lets analyse this:

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1962 provides a limited defence for parents who physically strike their children. Not "smack" - that word does not appear anywhere in the law.

Previously the Section 59 defence allowed parents to use electric cords, a fence picket, and a riding crop on their children.

The amended law promoted by Sue Bradford now protects children against that type of discipline.



And now you are saying that not being violently abused is causing teenagers to hit their parents...?

Sorry. I can't see the logical progression at all.

[Smifffy]

Hmm...so lets analyse this:

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1962 provides a limited defence for parents who physically strike their children. Not "smack" - that word does not appear anywhere in the law.

Previously the Section 59 defence allowed parents to use electric cords, a fence picket, and a riding crop on their children.

The amended law promoted by Sue Bradford now protects children against that type of discipline.



And now you are saying that not being violently abused is causing teenagers to hit their parents...?

Sorry. I can't see the logical progression at all.

There already was an "anti violent abuse law"

The kids that were at risk of being abused under that regime are at exactly the same risk of being abused now, under the current law.

Amending section 59 has reduced child abuse in NZ. YEAH RIGHT!

All it has done is make good parents fear the consequences of their children misbehaving.

[hellokitty]

There already was an "anti violent abuse law"

The kids that were at risk of being abused under that regime are at exactly the same risk of being abused now, under the current law.

Amending section 59 has reduced child abuse in NZ. YEAH RIGHT!

All it has done is make good parents fear the consequences of their children misbehaving.

True! It is illegal to bash your kids to death - an anti smacking law is not going to change that is it? People will still abuse and kill their kids.

[Mully]

The amended law promoted by Sue Bradford now protects children against that type of discipline.


Thank God for that, huh?

I hated that time, back in the past, when you couldn't go a week without reading about some lowlife beating the shit out of their child/step-child/other misc small person.

I'm so happy that the repeal of S59 stopped NZ's children being murdered by their family.

Wait, shit.

[Pussy]

Just as well the Kahuis didn't smack their kids, eh?

[PrincessBandit]

Well it's really only a retrograde expression of the way our laws are heading isn't it. You can't beat a home invasion offender who is terrifying the shit out of you but they can do what they like to you; a shop owner can't defend their shop or themselves in a way which might injure a knife or gun-toting robber; parents mustn't physically defend themselves from stroppy children who take the easy option of lashing out in case they accidentally "smack" them...

Well, perhaps I'm being a tad over reactive. But doesn't anyone else wonder where it will end?

[Little Miss Trouble]

Geez when there is a media beat up on us naughty motorcyclists you all blame the spin doctors for twisting the truth, yet when it's a government bill you believe them?!

The repeal of S59 was to remove the 'reasonable force' defence when child abusers get to court.
Yes it would be nice if we could stop all child abuse from happening, but that would require a lot more probing into EVERY family and then how many would claim 'big brother' was interfering too much in how you raise your kids?

And before anyone goes calling me a tree hugging greeny, yes I got a short sharp smack around the arse as a kid if I misbehaved and I'm sure my little darlings when I have em will get the same.

[Mully]

The repeal of S59 was to remove the 'reasonable force' defence when child abusers get to court.

Were the scumbags who were beating their kids with cables and baseball bats really claiming the "Reasonable Force" defence?

Because if they were, all parliament had to do was define "reasonable", if that was truly the problem.

Perhaps, thusly: "An open-handed smack to the arms, hands, buttocks, or legs"

Would anyone care to chance a guess at what the repeal of S59 has cost? Throwing in the select commities, referendum, police time investigating etc.

[Winston001]

Were the scumbags who were beating their kids with cables and baseball bats really claiming the "Reasonable Force" defence?


Yes.




Help the pollies out - define reasonable for us.

A hit on the ear? Around the backside? Enough to propel the child across the room? Or only 30mm? Not leave a mark? (shame about haemophilia). On the face? (slaps are common). Discipline imposed while angry? Use of a dog collar? Or bamboo cane? (used to be fine in schools).

Does reasonable require a strong blow because the child is now used to gentle smacks? A broken eardrum would be the child's own fault then eh?

Tie the kid up? Sounds reasonable.....


I'm interested in your forthcoming definition.

[Winston001]

There already was an "anti violent abuse law"

The kids that were at risk of being abused under that regime are at exactly the same risk of being abused now, under the current law.

Amending section 59 has reduced child abuse in NZ. YEAH RIGHT!

All it has done is make good parents fear the consequences of their children misbehaving.

Apologies in advance but - utter rot.

Strangely enough murder has been illegal for centuries, but it still happens. Speeding is unlawful - and it still happens.

Do you understand? The law proscribes certain behaviour. Hitting another person is assault. Its unlawful.

But assaults still happen. Do you recommend we do away with most crimes because a few people commit them anyway? If the law is ignored, why bother with it? So when your mother/sister/daughter is raped you'll be able to say it was inevitable and not illegal. Hey - life's not fair eh!

[Scuba_Steve]

Were the scumbags who were beating their kids with cables and baseball bats really claiming the "Reasonable Force" defence?

Because if they were, all parliament had to do was define "reasonable", if that was truly the problem.

Perhaps, thusly: "An open-handed smack to the arms, hands, buttocks, or legs"

Would anyone care to chance a guess at what the repeal of S59 has cost? Throwing in the select commities, referendum, police time investigating etc.

unfortunately yes, which is just a show of how shit our judges are, but it was our legal system that was the problem NOT the law, child abuse was/is still illegal.
see I think da Govt just needed to make it so if a judge deemed it "reasonable force" he/she must then be willing to be on the receiving end of said "reasonable force"

[mashman]

Well, perhaps I'm being a tad over reactive. But doesn't anyone else wonder where it will end?

Probably with unfit parents being sent to jail for giving their kids a cold, or looking at them in the wrong way...

[Mully]

Help the pollies out - define reasonable for us.

I'm interested in your forthcoming definition.

Already defined (well, a suggested definition) if you'd read my entire post - what's the past tense of forthcoming? Forthcame? Forthcomed?

Anyway, requoted below for your perusal.



Because if they were, all parliament had to do was define "reasonable", if that was truly the problem.

Perhaps, thusly: "An open-handed smack to the arms, hands, buttocks, or legs"


Please Note, before you go off half-cocked again, that I said "Perhaps, thusly" above. I'm sure the Gummint has many good lawyers (I am but a simple KB Bush Lawyer (tm)) who could have come up with a definition more suited to the situation.

[Winston001]

unfortunately yes, which is just a show of how shit our judges are, but it was our legal system that was the problem NOT the law, child abuse was/is still illegal.
see I think da Govt just needed to make it so if a judge deemed it "reasonable force" he/she must then be willing to be on the receiving end of said "reasonable force"

An honest mistake Steve but wrong.

Totally wrong.

Juries - twelve men and true - ordinary folk handed out Not Guilty verdicts in those cases. They believed the law (at that time) allowed parents to use horse crops etc as reasonable discipline.

The relevant part of the Crimes Act deals with matters of justification or excuse. Section 59 used to say a parent could offer a defence of "reasonable force". Juries were confused by this because reasonable force in some families was harsh, but it was still reasonable within that family. So reasonable doubt......Not Guilty.

Child abuse cases became a lottery so the legal defence was tightened up. End of story.


Frankly I cannot see why large hulking adults want to be allowed to hit their children.

A simple smack on the bottom once in a blue moon is a long long way from what actually happens in some homes. And when the police discover violence, shouldn't they prosecute without fearing somebody will say the abuse was "reasonable"?

[Winston001]

Please Note, before you go off half-cocked again, that I said "Perhaps, thusly" above. I'm sure the Gummint has many good lawyers (I am but a simple KB Bush Lawyer (tm)) who could have come up with a definition more suited to the situation.

LOL fair enough. Not many things upset me or engage my passion but abuse of children (and animals) is a sick and perverted act. I am speaking of abuse, not a light tap on the bottom.

The word "reasonable" in this context is not defined by any Parliament that I know of (willing to be corrected).

Why? Well its a very vague and sweeping word. I know what is reasonable. IMHO a clout around the ear is unreasonable. It is a blow to the head which can cause damage, as well as having a psychological effect: it is more personal than a tap on the hand or bottom.

Nevertheless you or many other people will say I am silly. Reasonable in some homes means bruises and lumps. And everyone is better for it.

Sooo....the definition of "reasonable" is left to caselaw, meaning it is defined and redefined over decades by judges and juries conducting trials. That way, we don't get stuck with a narrow definition of a term which the MPs didn't really understand when they passed the law.

Anyway enough. No set of words will stop some people breaking the law. But slowly over time, public attitudes will change and we should all be better for it.

[Scuba_Steve]

An honest mistake Steve but wrong.

Totally wrong.

Juries - twelve men and true - ordinary folk handed out Not Guilty verdicts in those cases. They believed the law (at that time) allowed parents to use horse crops etc as reasonable discipline.

The relevant part of the Crimes Act deals with matters of justification or excuse. Section 59 used to say a parent could offer a defence of "reasonable force". Juries were confused by this because reasonable force in some families was harsh, but it was still reasonable within that family. So reasonable doubt......Not Guilty.

Child abuse cases became a lottery so the legal defence was tightened up. End of story.


OK so jurys are fucking morons too but I know alot of these were passed by judges rather than juries either way shit decisions on their part, but as has been noted it's not hard to define "reasonable force" hell it's done right here on this thread by Mully, its all that was needed.

[JimO]

we dont smack our kids, i get the next door neighbour to do it

[EJT]

Have those opposing the "anti smacking law" actually read the section.


" Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution."

In other words if your child is doing the things in 1(a) to (d), you can use "reasonable force" in the circumstances. It is not an "anti smacking" law, but one which exposes parents or caregivers to prosecution if they use unreasonable force.

And so Parliament has attempted to define the circumstances in which you can use force - so long as that force is reasonable.

No it won't stop extreme cases of abuse, just as tougher drink driving laws won't stop recidivist drunks, but if it stops those dickheads using the old law to escape conviction in circumstances where any normal person would think abhorrent then I am all for it.

[Bikemad]

My response would be a phonecall to CYFS - "Come take the little fuckers away

man are you gonna be disappointed............i rang cyfs one day a few years ago to try and get them to intervene when my daughter went off the rails there for a bit.......stealing shit,fighting and threatening her mum with the bash etc............the response from cyfs was "i can give you the phone number for the positive parenting association"..........what a fucking joke............lets park the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff again

[PrincessBandit]

man are you gonna be disappointed............i rang cyfs one day a few years ago to try and get them to intervene when my daughter went off the rails there for a bit.......stealing shit,fighting and threatening her mum with the bash etc............the response from cyfs was "i can give you the phone number for the positive parenting association"..........what a fucking joke............lets park the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff again

Social welfare had been doing that for decades. My folks ran (for a short while) a social welfare home for teenage girls while I was at intermediate school. Have to say it was, in hindsight, a fascinating period of my life (we lived in- house). However my mum struggled continually with welfare's expectation that the girls who were staying at the home didn't have to be accountable for their actions. One in particular kept "losing" her gear - welfare would simply provide her with another [insert whatever the time was]. There were no consequences for not looking after her things. Mum was told to "treat the girls as if they were her own" (hahahaha, get real - we were brought up with discipline and expectations as well as love and security) yet she wasn't allowed to hold them accountable for all their gear that went wherever the hell it went.

[Scuba_Steve]

Have those opposing the "anti smacking law" actually read the section.


" Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution."

In other words if your child is doing the things in 1(a) to (d), you can use "reasonable force" in the circumstances. It is not an "anti smacking" law, but one which exposes parents or caregivers to prosecution if they use unreasonable force.

And so Parliament has attempted to define the circumstances in which you can use force - so long as that force is reasonable.

No it won't stop extreme cases of abuse, just as tougher drink driving laws won't stop recidivist drunks, but if it stops those dickheads using the old law to escape conviction in circumstances where any normal person would think abhorrent then I am all for it.

and here is the big problem with the new law

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

And it turns otherwise good parents into criminals, & confuses people of when it is/isn't acceptable to smack, & if the article is based on truth has kids thinking their parents can no longer touch them & some parents thinking the same way

I remember watching brat camp UK and the parents would just say "don't do that" with the kids response of "fuck off" to which they then remarked "see I can't control him/her" & always wandered why they didn't just smack da little shit... well I think I understand now
Sure a smack woulda taught that shit a lesson & controlled them better but "your not allowed to", so they gotta go through the whole brat camp thing to achieve the same thing

[Latte]

Yes, that law reads (to me) that you can smack a kid to prevent the bad behaviour continuing, but you cant smack them as a consequence to their action (correction).

Steal from mums purse, get a smack when you're caught..... by that law written it would breach part 2), and it would only be police discretion stopping any charges.

[mashman]

and here is the big problem with the new law

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

Absolutely, especially when you take into account (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1) :facepalm:. I would have thought ALL of the below were for correction purposes? You are correcting "inappropriate" behaviour?

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

[Number One]

CYFS is a fucking joke.

Personal experience. Son was abused by one of my family members. CYFS 'rang me' and asked if I was going to keep him away from said family member...I replied 'FUCK YES!' they said that's great - we are satisfied that the child is safe...WTF? REALLY???


What if we were actually also abusing him...seems that's probably ok...they weren't even slightly interested in checking us out properly NOR did we get any bloody help from them...useless fuckers.

As for smacking your kids...in 7 years I have done it twice...open handed slap on his dressed bum. He laughed at me...I can somewhat understand how a desperate parent without the maturity and wherewithall might go too far to try to get 'a message across' when the red fog is up BUT both those occasions were more about my frustration and loss of control than actually making him understand the error of his ways....withdrawing playstation privelages is WAY more effective.

[Indoo]

So how many good parents have been arrested and criminalised for giving their children a reasonable smack in the circumstances. It's been a few years now, must be hundreds if not thousands of them out there according to what Family First and co were telling us it would result in?

[Coldrider]

So how many good parents have been arrested and criminalised for giving their children a reasonable smack in the circumstances. It's been a few years now, must be hundreds if not thousands of them out there according to what Family First and co were telling us it would result in?Way less than the amount of children who have been since killed by abuse, which was what this law was intended to stop. Left yourself wide open to that one.

Parental corrective smacking and child abuse are separate activities, so the law will never work.

[Mully]

we dont smack our kids, i get the next door neighbour to do it

My old boss said that you should pay the older ones to smack the younger ones around. Then it's just sibling bullying....


man are you gonna be disappointed............i rang cyfs one day a few years ago to try and get them to intervene when my daughter went off the rails there for a bit.

Really? Shit.

I wonder what they would have done if you had said (in writing, so the weasels couldn't deny it) that you were abandoning your parental rights and moving her shit onto the lawn. They'd better come get her before the dodgy old man up the road gets her.


So how many good parents have been arrested and criminalised for giving their children a reasonable smack in the circumstances. It's been a few years now, must be hundreds if not thousands of them out there according to what Family First and co were telling us it would result in?

AFAIK, none have been prosecuted. But I think they Police have had to spend time investigating whenever they get a complaint (from the do-gooder camp). Add the $11 million or whatever it was to the cost of the damn law amendment and it's a pretty expensive folly for Bradford.

[Scuba_Steve]

AFAIK, none have been prosecuted. But I think they Police have had to spend time investigating whenever they get a complaint (from the do-gooder camp). Add the $11 million or whatever it was to the cost of the damn law amendment and it's a pretty expensive folly for Bradford.

Remember with all the time wasted on the speed scam the cops ain't the best at investigating the cases in the 1st place.


Hundreds of abused children could still be living with their abusers after revelations a mountain of uninvestigated cases in Wairarapa is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Dominion Post understands the number of backlogged sex and physical abuse cases could be as high as 600 throughout the Wellington police district, and includes a case involving allegations against a Newlands teacher who is still teaching.

And this is just the Wellington region, I'm sure we can all make a decent educated guess at a nation wide total.

[Flip]

AFAIK, none have been prosecuted. But I think they Police have had to spend time investigating whenever they get a complaint (from the do-gooder camp). Add the $11 million or whatever it was to the cost of the damn law amendment and it's a pretty expensive folly for Bradford.

It's being paid for with some of the collected speed camera money.

[mashman]

So how many good parents have been arrested and criminalised for giving their children a reasonable smack in the circumstances. It's been a few years now, must be hundreds if not thousands of them out there according to what Family First and co were telling us it would result in?

Last time I looked, about 18 months ago, there were 29 cases where a parent had been removed from their families, "incorrectly"... even when the kid owned up :yes:.

[Smifffy]

Quick - let's get the laws changed to remove the rquirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The judiciary are required to use judgment to interpret the wording of the law and then apply it to best serve society.

This is where we have been let down, so now maybe upon reflection it was a good thing that Sue Bradford did, in removing the judge's ability to make judgments on that point, since they are obviously so poor at it.

I still think it would have been better to give the judges a smack tho.

[Indoo]

Way less than the amount of children who have been since killed by abuse, which was what this law was intended to stop.

Where did anyone claim that this was going to stop children being murdered? Winston has already explained pretty clearly the reasons for the change.


Last time I looked, about 18 months ago, there were 29 cases where a parent had been removed from their families

Your not talking about the cases that Family First publicised where they only presented the 'offenders' version of events and the actual circumstances were found to be markedly different?

[mashman]

Your not talking about the cases that Family First publicised where they only presented the 'offenders' version of events and the actual circumstances were found to be markedly different?

They are the ones I'm talking about. I stand corrected if you know something that wasn't published... but the "descriptions" didn't look like the offender's version only.

[Indoo]

There was an article published that went over the actual details of each case and the reality was alot different from what Family Firsts propaganda let on. Afaik none of them actually involved 'good' parents being prosecuted for a reasonable smack. I can't stand Bradford or people like her, but the change in itself imo was needed.

[mashman]

I don't doubt there's more to it in a few of the cases... but the laws and their changes are useless where they contradict each other. How can you say it's ok to "smack" for prevention, but not for correction? Oi, your shoe laces are undone, "smack" you could trip over and hurt yourself... Perfectly reasonable I would have thought, given the law that's in place...

I'm more than happy with Mully's definition. Open hand smack on the arse, arms, hand or leg... for everything else, put it through the system...

[shrub]

Once again this topic arises...and once again I'll say, 'arrest me'.

I'm going to smack my kids if they so deserve it.

I will not abuse my children but when they get sick of my nagging and don't take kindly to my yelling, then I'll give the little darlings a slap to say, I've had enough.

I too, hate the sound of my screeching so, in order to keep them happy, I'll slap their left thigh, it's the closest to my right hand...though sometimes an ear may get in the way.

I love my children, they are dear to me and to NOT SMACK them is to dishonour them.

But what about women?

I too hate the sound of their screeching, and I love my partner and she's dear to me, so is not smacking her dishonouring her?

Seriously, it sounds like you might need to look at how you parent your children. It sounds like you nag and yell at them a lot and when you find that doesn't work, you hit them. I've raised kids to young adults, and they've turned into honest, law abiding and hard working kids making something of their lives. I didn't nag them and only yelled when it was really serious, and I hit my daughter once, and I am still ashamed of that as I see it as weakness on my part.

A question I'm interested in, is what will you do when hitting them doesn't work the way yelling doesn't? Hit them harder? Use a stick? Put them under a hot tap? I knew a Christian couple who were fervent supporters of smacking, but their kids become acclimatised to it they found a new and effective tool - making their kids eat chilli. You could try that when smacking loses it's effectiveness.

[ynot slow]

And good on you I think this is how they should be brought up, Its how I was brought up & as far as I'm concerned it creates more respectful/considerate people heres to you :2thumbsup

Funny how we agree with a smack,now "the bash" is way different.I can't remember getting a smack or kick in arse,but probably did,but when we got to 8 or so we knew the boundaries and how hard to push.

Looking back and playing cricket on neighbours back lawn,the neighbour was called for tea,he didn't move quick enough,and his mum came out,grabbed a cricket wicket and chucked it at her son,hit him in the calf,and broke the skin,the bottom of wicket had steel round the tapered end,we laughed at the time,but now his mum would be shot.

[Genie]

Last time I looked, about 18 months ago, there were 29 cases where a parent had been removed from their families, "incorrectly"... even when the kid owned up :yes:.

hmmm, this causes me to speak about a dear friend of mine who was having issues with her then 13 year old daughter. Daughter decided she was a big girl and didn't need to be told what time to be home, who to associate with and well, her mum could just go and fck herself. Mum worn out and very upset asks for help from that agency, they refer her to a parenting course, mother does course, daughter got worse, daughter attacks mother, mother slaps daughter, police arrest mother....mother got charged, court date etc, found guilty etc.......


Six months later daughter admits to all and sundry how she stitched her mother up good and proper, 'twas all lies!

And to the judgemental wanker Indoo (whatever, your handle is crap), thanks for the read rep, I've raised one son rather successfully to the age of 24 and have four others and they have not been bashed, (you scantamonous A-hole) and are awesome adorable children who do not go around beating up others as a re-action to the truama of my slap around the leg they have received. :clap:

[mashman]

hmmm, this causes me to speak about a dear friend of mine who was having issues with her then 13 year old daughter. Daughter decided she was a big girl and didn't need to be told what tiem to be home, who to associate with and well, her mum could just go and fck herself. Mum worn and very upset asks for help from that agency, they refer her to a parenting course, mother does course, daughter got worse, daughter attacks mother, mother slaps daughter, police arrest mother....mother got charged, court date etc, find guilty etc.......


Surely not, they're all darlings that have gained the respect of their parents over the years and vice versa, how could they just suddenly change and start telling lies... it must be the parents fault :blink:... Some kids just turn into nasty cunts irrespective of parenting skills.

I've smacked every single one of my kids. They get the warning in the form of a reason, then they get the smack if they refuse to "listen". I have smacked out of "frustration" and have been instantly remourseful, apologising and explaining why I was at fault, yes, apologising to my kids.

I have a 19yr old, 7, 5, 3... the 19yr old is an amazing man, pure and simple. The 7 year old is a stunning little lady (not been smacked in over a year at least come to think of it), 5 year old is mischief personified, button pusher extordinnaire, the actress, the boundary pusher (not smacked in a few months), 3 year old learning from both older sisters and encouraged to misbehave by them too, not smacked for that, (but smacked a couple of days ago).

For me a smack is the reaffirmation of my requests/warnings for X reasons, the reasons they have already be made aware of, as well as what comes next :yes:... it is an "I'm serious" reaffirmation for when they're just not listening. I make no bones about it, IT WORKS FOR THEM. Do I wish they'd just listen to me? absolutely, as I don't particularly enjoy smacking them... I doubt many parents do. I believe they will be "reasonable" children moving into adulthood and won't need any form of "extrasocial" intervention... however, that does not mean that they won't become nightmare teens/adults (for whatever reason) and I'm really not prepared for what's coming in that regard. I hope over the years i'll have given them enough info for them to make their own decisions in an thoughful way, because they WILL make their own decisions irrespective of my wishes/request/reasons...

So, to the do-gooders who have such exemplary skills in managing their kids without having to resort to a "smack", and have got kids that are utterly reasonable, congratulations :yes:... but don't you fuckin dare tell me how to bring up my kids. They're ALL very different. They're all doing superbly thanks... They do NOT get beaten, not even close. You focus on yours and i'll focus on mine... and hopefully we can all keep an eye out for those who are getting beaten or mistreated...

[scumdog]

Remember with all the time wasted on the speed scam the cops ain't the best at investigating the cases in the 1st place.
.

Well fuckin' slow down so they can focus on child abuse instead of speeders - oh wait, there's no revenue in investigating child abuse....carry on then..

[FJRider]

Well fuckin' slow down so they can focus on child abuse instead of speeders - oh wait, there's no revenue in investigating child abuse....carry on then..

Perhaps a quota of child smacking be introduced ... that might get results ...

[Winston001]

The problem with our argument here is that we are all decent average people. None of us harm or are violent to our children. Some of us occasionally use a short smack to make a point with a child. We consider that to be normal effective discipline and it works.

We are not the people the law, CYPS, or the police are concerned about. There are the others, the small percentage of our population who are violent and abusive with their children. We have all seen the media reports.

Section 59 used to provide a reasonable doubt even for some abusive parents. The public blamed judges, juries and lawyers - but the simple fact was the law was loose.

So - Section 59 was amended and tightened up. Abusive parents will find it hard to find a defence, and it's notable that in the last 3 years there haven't been any Not Guilty verdicts in violent cases.

There is no slew of cases where decent parents have been victimised by the police or CYPS. In a nation of 4 million, you'd expect hundreds of prosecutions annually against ordinary parents if the law required that.

It doesn't.

[FJRider]

There is no slew of cases where decent parents have been victimised by the police or CYPS. In a nation of 4 million, you'd expect hundreds of prosecutions annually against ordinary parents if the law required that.

It doesn't.

That's because some people see something they dont like ... and make a complaint ...

Complaints (to Police)have to be investigated ... people charged if there is doubt ...

Innocent 'till proven guilty ... right ...

Some people do seem to have nothing to do but make complaints ...

[shrub]

The problem with our argument here is that we are all decent average people. None of us harm or are violent to our children. Some of us occasionally use a short smack to make a point with a child. We consider that to be normal effective discipline and it works.

We are not the people the law, CYPS, or the police are concerned about. There are the others, the small percentage of our population who are violent and abusive with their children. We have all seen the media reports.

Section 59 used to provide a reasonable doubt even for some abusive parents. The public blamed judges, juries and lawyers - but the simple fact was the law was loose.

So - Section 59 was amended and tightened up. Abusive parents will find it hard to find a defence, and it's notable that in the last 3 years there haven't been any Not Guilty verdicts in violent cases.

There is no slew of cases where decent parents have been victimised by the police or CYPS. In a nation of 4 million, you'd expect hundreds of prosecutions annually against ordinary parents if the law required that.

It doesn't.

Absolutely! You have hit the nail on the head, but sadly I doubt many here have the wit to read and listen to what you have said.

[Scuba_Steve]

The problem with our argument here is that we are all decent average people. None of us harm or are violent to our children. Some of us occasionally use a short smack to make a point with a child. We consider that to be normal effective discipline and it works.


And here is the problem that we're going on about, because if you do that now you are a criminal no 2-ways about it any more, you cannot under any circumstances smack your kid under this new law. If they did bring in "child abuse" quotas as sarcastically (I assume) mentioned by FJRider there would be alot of unjust convictions to otherwise innocent parents like Genie & Mashman, so all we can do at this stage is hope like hell they never bring in said quotas as the Govt seems quite willing to ignore democracy & refuse to reverse the law as NZ voted.

[marie_speeds]

I save up 4 weeks worth of lawn and then make my son cut it with an electric line trimmer as punishment. He's done it twice now that way in the past 18 months and is not keen to repeat the ordeal :wari:

[superman]

I save up 4 weeks worth of lawn and then make my son cut it with an electric line trimmer as punishment. He's done it twice now that way in the past 18 months and is not keen to repeat the ordeal :wari:

Wow that's a good idea. When I got a little bit mouthy and angry at the parents (mostly due to my mothers incessant nagging) through my little "phase" I was sent to boarding school :blink:

Well I was begging to come home after having to live with those crazy jock idiots! Couldn't believe people like that existed till I had to live with them. :facepalm:

Made me see how lucky I was to have my parents.

[Scuba_Steve]

I save up 4 weeks worth of lawn and then make my son cut it with an electric line trimmer as punishment. He's done it twice now that way in the past 18 months and is not keen to repeat the ordeal :wari:

only 4 weeks? I got 6mths worth at my place, chest height on a 1/4 acre... So if you really wanna punish him let me know :D:msn-wink:

[marie_speeds]

only 4 weeks? I got 6mths worth at my place, chest height on a 1/4 acre... So if you really wanna punish him let me know :D:msn-wink:

Bugger he was getting real close to my limit but is now back at school. Next holidays maybe?

[marie_speeds]

Wow that's a good idea. When I got a little bit mouthy and angry at the parents (mostly due to my mothers incessant nagging) through my little "phase" I was sent to boarding school :blink:

Well I was begging to come home after having to live with those crazy jock idiots! Couldn't believe people like that existed till I had to live with them. :facepalm:

Made me see how lucky I was to have my parents.

My parents use to torture us by making us go out back and choose a stick..... Then they had this brilliant idea that if one got it we all got it. There were six of us so the guilty party would get one lot of punishment from the parents and then another 5 lots of punishment from the rest of us as we were pissed off about being punished because of them!

[superman]

My parents use to torture us by making us go out back and choose a stick..... Then they had this brilliant idea that if one got it we all got it. There were six of us so the guilty party would get one lot of punishment from the parents and then another 5 lots of punishment from the rest of us as we were pissed off about being punished because of them!

Sounds like typical 5 monkey theory there :yes:

Good use of social psychology on your parents part.

[Banditbandit]

And here is the problem that we're going on about, because if you do that now you are a criminal no 2-ways about it any more, you cannot under any circumstances smack your kid under this new law. If they did bring in "child abuse" quotas as sarcastically (I assume) mentioned by FJRider there would be alot of unjust convictions to otherwise innocent parents like Genie & Mashman, so all we can do at this stage is hope like hell they never bring in said quotas as the Govt seems quite willing to ignore democracy & refuse to reverse the law as NZ voted.

Jeez .. can't you read ?? Are you really that stupid? Sections 1 A to D lay out exactly the circumstances when it is OK to use reasonable force (smack) on a child ...

" Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting."


And sorry - Governments sometimes make decisions which are "undemocratic" ... like increasing GST ...

[Scuba_Steve]

Jeez .. can't you read ?? Are you really that stupid? Sections 1 A to D lay out exactly the circumstances when it is OK to use reasonable force (smack) on a child ...

" Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting."


And sorry - Governments sometimes make decisions which are "undemocratic" ... like increasing GST ...

Yes I can read can you?
Could any part of the said section above be considered "correctional"? I would say all above could be considered "correctional" in-which section 2 says under NO circumstances does anything in section 1 give you the right to smack your kids.
So section 2 contradicts section 1 & overrules it as the law is written.

[Banditbandit]

Yes I can read can you?
Could any part of the said section above be considered "correctional"? I would say all above could be considered "correctional" in-which section 2 says under NO circumstances does anything in section 1 give you the right to smack your kids.
So section 2 contradicts section 1 & overrules it as the law is written.

No. The law goes to the motivation, not the action ... same as it does in the difference between Murder and Manslaughter - someone is dead in both cases because of the actions of someone else - the difference is MOTIVE, not action ...

[Winston001]

No. The law goes to the motivation, not the action ... same as it does in the difference between Murder and Manslaughter - someone is dead in both cases because of the actions of someone else - the difference is MOTIVE, not action ...

Lets keep it accurate :D mens rea is what you mean by motive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

And the physical deed is the actus reus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

[Clockwork]

Jeez .. can't you read ?? Are you really that stupid? Sections 1 A to D lay out exactly the circumstances when it is OK to use reasonable force (smack) on a child ...

" Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting."


And sorry - Governments sometimes make decisions which are "undemocratic" ... like increasing GST ...


As I read that act, it states that you may not "assault" a child for the purposes of correction. You may however assault them by way of physically restraining them for those purposes defined in clauses a-d.

From my POV even the lightest slap could be interpreted as correction and effectively in breach of this act (unless you were slapping away say a hand that heading toward a circular saw or some such) Under any other circumstances you probably be at the "discretion" of any investigating Police Officer.

The problem with that is that there is a very good case to say that the Police should not become Judge and Jury, such matters are best decided by the Courts.
Of course the Courts (the jury of our peers an'all) having heard all the evidence, would often return verdicts that the media and other non participants found unpalatable. So the politicians choose to replace on set of ambiguous clauses with another.

In the end it comes down to whether we want our courts to uphold the spirit of the law in light of what a sample of our society (jurors) consider appropriate or the just letter of the law, in which case lets do away with juries altogether (as we seem to be doing progressively).

We might as well just leave the law as it stands and let the Police issue infringement notices for such "minor" offenses.

[Scuba_Steve]

No. The law goes to the motivation, not the action ... same as it does in the difference between Murder and Manslaughter - someone is dead in both cases because of the actions of someone else - the difference is MOTIVE, not action ...

so what "correctional" is pre meditated & illegal but if you beat da shit outta them in a fit of rage to prevent the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour that's acceptable because it wasn't premeditated correctional it was a temporary fit of rage to stop their disruptive behaviour.

"She was screaming her head off so I used "reasonable force" of a 4x2 to stop her from continuing her disruptive behaviour your honour"

[oneofsix]

so what "correctional" is pre meditated & illegal but if you beat da shit outta them in a fit of rage to prevent the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour that's acceptable because it wasn't premeditated correctional it was a temporary fit of rage to stop their disruptive behaviour.


I don't think "fit of rage" is "preventative"
I do like c though. It is amazing how a quick slap will shut up a screaming kid.

[Skyryder]

Section 1 (a) to (d) clearly states the circumstances that the law allows the use of force. Some see sections (a) to (d) as correctional. It could be equally argued that the use of force is to educate the child as to what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. (see police guidelines at the end of this post) This interpretation of the law is the one that I believe is the intent of the legislation; that of parental education where force is allowed. Others who oppose the legislation seem to be fixated with the interpretation of the legislation for ‘correctional’ purposes only and as such see sections 2 and 3 as the overriding intent of the legislation. On this basis where the use of force is used for correction the parent is breaking the law.
However section (d) gives parents a pretty wide latitude and any competent lawyer providing there was no injury to the child would get an acquittal.

It is the ‘intent’ of the legislation that many, for their own reasons, dismiss. I suspect that they would sooner see juries find parents not guilty with a defence of ‘reasonable force’, as was happening under the old legislation, where children had been injured to the extent of bruising and other injuries.

The full legislation

Parental control
1. Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
a. preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
b. preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
c. preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
d. performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
2. Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
3. Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
4. To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Adults assaulting children no longer have the legal defence of "reasonable force" but "force ... may ... be for the purposes of restraint ... or, by way of example, to ensure compliance", according to the police practice guide.

Section 4 Says it all.



Skyryder

[avgas]

Beat the shit out of kids when they do wrong.
Beat the shit out of adults when they do wrong.

The law is to be enforced or not applied at all.

[shrub]

Police action/inaction. If anyone has wanted the cops to investigate a burglary or other form of theft, they're really not interested because they are far too busy, so can anyone anticipate the cops wasting time prosecuting Mike and Mary Citizen for loving tapping little Tarquin on the botty to stop him running out in front of a truck? The most that will happen is Mike and Mary will get a phone call.

But if the cops think Mike and Mary might just be actual or potential child abusers, they will take action because they won't face the frustration of a smart arse lawyer using the reasonable force excuse. Which means Mike and Mary might just be stopped from doing worse.

The law took away a tool used by lawyers to keep the guilty free.

Incidentally, that guy who "flicked" his son's ear - he's a really strange character, and the word on the street is that he does some pretty ugly stuff, which is why the cops prosecuted.

[Banditbandit]

Lets keep it accurate :D mens rea is what you mean by motive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

And the physical deed is the actus reus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

Yeah .. I was trying to keep it reasonably simple for KBers ...

Generally, I think it is a good law and works well. Family First and others continue to stir the pot and posit worst-case senarios which have not eventuated and are not factual .. I see no reason to continue this debate .. so I am out of this one ...

[mashman]

This interpretation of the law is the one that I believe is the intent of the legislation; that of parental education where force is allowed.

I thought the reason the law was changed was to remove intrepretations of the law in question? I've seen at least 3 or 4 different interpretations in this thread alone. What was the point if it's up to the discretion of the Judge at the end of the day?

[Winston001]

I thought the reason the law was changed was to remove intrepretations of the law in question? I've seen at least 3 or 4 different interpretations in this thread alone. What was the point if it's up to the discretion of the Judge at the end of the day?

The change to Section 59 was to tighten it up. Previously some parents convinced juries their extreme punishments were reasonable.

Also Section 59 had been read as legal permission to physically assault your children which isn't a good message if we are to have a safe society.

The section was never - and is never expected to stop the small number of contemptible creatures who deliberately children. Just as the law against murder doesn't stop it happening.

[Coldrider]

The purpose of the Act says it all.

Purpose
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.

[mashman]

The change to Section 59 was to tighten it up. Previously some parents convinced juries their extreme punishments were reasonable.

Also Section 59 had been read as legal permission to physically assault your children which isn't a good message if we are to have a safe society.


So what has changed:

The Act.

What has stayed the same:

The Parents (both good and bad)
The Excuses.
The Juries.
The Judges.

As coldrider points out



Purpose
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.


If all I have to do is prove prevention and not correction, then I'm home and hosed. The only thing that has changed is the Act.



The section was never - and is never expected to stop the small number of contemptible creatures who deliberately children. Just as the law against murder doesn't stop it happening.

So who is it supposed to stop if all you need to do is prove prevention. I could smack for correction purposes and give an entirely different reason for the injuries. Kinda seems pointless, given that the only thing that has changed is the Act. The parents/lawyers will make the same excuses, but with a prevention bias...

I didn't want my child to burn herself on the heater she was moving towards, so I smacked her and in doing so she fell against the heater. Don't get me wrong, I see what you're getting at, but I don't see the law having been tightened at all... and don't believe that you really can tighten it short of specifying the level/style of "assault" you're allowed to administer.

[Winston001]

This law is simple compared to other pieces of law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the new Section 59 is as flawed as its critics say, where are the hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions?

?

This amended law is working. That is the crucial issue.

[Mully]

This law is simple compared to other pieces of law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the new Section 59 is as flawed as its critics say, where are the hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions?

?

This amended law is working. That is the crucial issue.

I didn't say it was flawed - I said it wasn't required. And I maintain that. I never fell in with "the sky is falling" scaremongers on this one.

Particularly with the costs involved (didn't that fucking referndum cost $11m or some such),

[mashman]

This law is simple compared to other pieces of law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the new Section 59 is as flawed as its critics say, where are the hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions?

?

This amended law is working. That is the crucial issue.

All I can go on is what I have read on the Family First site and the documents there and there do seem to have been unnecessaary convictions...

As for what is working. Let's say it's the law :msn-wink:

[Coldrider]

All I can go on is what I have read on the Family First site and the documents there and there do seem to have been unnecessaary convictions...

As for what is working. Let's say it's the law :msn-wink:Just about all the media I have found on anti smacking law is tainted by particular groups.

[Skyryder]

The new act removed the defence of ‘reasonable force.’ That essentially was its purpose for reasons that I have previously stated.

The new legislation is pretty clear where force may be used and at the same time leaves wide latitude where it may be applied.

There is some confusion over 2 and 3.

2. Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
3. Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).


2 simply states that (a) (b) (c) and (d) can not be used for the purposes of correction.

2 states this in plain language.

Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

3 reinforces this by stating that 2 prevails over subsection (1).

Many interpret 3 as 2 over riding (a) (b) (c) and (d). This as the legislation clearly states only applies for the purpose of correction and not where force may be lawfully used as applicable in (a) (b) (c_ and (d).

Skyryder



Skyryder

[Scuba_Steve]

This law is simple compared to other pieces of law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the new Section 59 is as flawed as its critics say, where are the hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions?

?

This amended law is working. That is the crucial issue.

If it is working how many child abuses has it stopped?
As Mully said it was not needed.
The only thing I can see it doing over the old law is making it harder for innocent people, just like gun laws. and while there might not be "hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions" now it doesn't mean there won't be, speed laws were round long before they turned it into the scam cash cow it is today. So as I've said before best hope they never move their quota system over to child abuse.

[marie_speeds]

End of last year just before start of school holidays was walking along when approached by two police officers looking for a mother and her two children. Someone had reported that she "roughly" grabbed one of her daughters by the arm to prevent them from stepping out onto the road. This particular road is not a main one by one that leads to many other streets, so has high usage. It has a downhill slope and average speed would probably be around the 65km mark. On occasion I have witnessed cars doing what I believe to be closer to 100km/hr and higher.

My response to the police officer was to ask if they actually had anything better to do......

[mashman]

The new act removed the defence of ‘reasonable force.’ That essentially was its purpose for reasons that I have previously stated.

hmmmm, that's a bit confusing...

"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of— (a,b,c,d) etc..."

So you're saying that being justified in using force if the force used is reasonable, is not the same as using 'reasonable force'? I didn't pass English as a subject so may well have the wrong end of the stick :blink:

...as for the rest, 2 overriding 1 for correction purposes :facepalm:, great, yes, we get it, pointless, but we get it and when the time comes, we'll plead prevention :blink:... subsection 3, ABSOLUTELY COMICAL... they must have been laughing their arses off when they put that one in there... just making sure where they :facepalm: Yet another ill conceived money waster from parliament...

[MisterD]

...as for the rest, 2 overriding 1 for correction purposes :facepalm:, great, yes, we get it, pointless, but we get it and when the time comes, we'll plead prevention :blink:... subsection 3, ABSOLUTELY COMICAL... they must have been laughing their arses off when they put that one in there... just making sure where they :facepalm: Yet another ill conceived money waster from parliament...

I think the intent was quite clearly to ban smacking completely but to still allow other use of force that would be an assault in adult terms ie pick up, restrain, forcibly move whatever...

[Clockwork]

Exacerry!. So the moral of the story is; don't smack your kids in public, drag them off somewhere private to do it, leave no physical evidence.


Bit like speeding really, its only an offense if someone sees you do it.

[MisterD]

Exacerry!. So the moral of the story is; don't smack your kids in public, drag them off somewhere private to do it, leave no physical evidence.

Heh. I've only had to leave the supermarket with MasterD slung over my shoulder the once...:yes:

[mashman]

I think the intent was quite clearly to ban smacking completely but to still allow other use of force that would be an assault in adult terms ie pick up, restrain, forcibly move whatever...

To me it's as clear as mud and if the intent was that clear, it would have said "no smacking" somewhere in the Act... but it doesn't.

Is your interpretation different to skyryders? because it looks that way to me:innocent:

[dipshit]

Don't have kids.

That'll learn em.

[Skyryder]

hmmmm, that's a bit confusing...

"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of— (a,b,c,d) etc..."

So you're saying that being justified in using force if the force used is reasonable, is not the same as using 'reasonable force'? I didn't pass English as a subject so may well have the wrong end of the stick :blink:

...as for the rest, 2 overriding 1 for correction purposes :facepalm:, great, yes, we get it, pointless, but we get it and when the time comes, we'll plead prevention :blink:... subsection 3, ABSOLUTELY COMICAL... they must have been laughing their arses off when they put that one in there... just making sure where they :facepalm: Yet another ill conceived money waster from parliament...

No it’s not the same. There is an added proviso in that the force must be reasonable in the ‘circumstances.’ You have to read the whole of the sentence in section 1. not just the highlighted bit that you have posted.

Still I do see where you are coming from. There may be some case law that defines section one. I’ll ask my daughter on this next time I see her. She’s a lawyer. No guarantee that she will know. This is not her area of expertise.


Skyryder

[mashman]

No it’s not the same. There is an added proviso in that the force must be reasonable in the ‘circumstances.’ You have to read the whole of the sentence in section 1. not just the highlighted bit that you have posted.

Still I do see where you are coming from. There may be some case law that defines section one. I’ll ask my daughter on this next time I see her. She’s a lawyer. No guarantee that she will know. This is not her area of expertise.


Skyryder

Even in the context of the whole sentence, which I did read it in, there is still mention of reasonable force, just not allowed expressly for correction purposes. Lies are lies, proving prevention instead of correction shouldn't be too hard for a lawyer, even a crap one. That's why I consider that the Act and its new wording to be just as open to interpretation as it always has been... after all, same judges, same parents and an excuse to fit the circumstances. Unfortunately this may also catch, as "reported", good parents, who will be criminalised in the name of upholding the law :facepalm:. Granted there is still discretion of Police/Judges/CYF etc... but that has always been there.

I'm guessing that she sees it from both sides :) That being the case, the whole debacle was just a waste of time and money.

[Coldrider]

Don't have kids.

That'll learn em.Is that premeditated murder?

[Smifffy]

Is that premeditated murder?

Not yet, but I think there's a private member's bill in this year's parliamentary agenda.

[shrub]

was that it would turn ordinary, otherwise law abiding NZ citizens into criminals by making something that many of the do illegal - note I said "many", not all.

Couldn't we say the same about the drug laws? I pay my taxes, don't steal, don't kill people and have only hit my children once; but because I like a spliff now and again I am a criminal.

And Mary pays her taxes, doesn't hit her children, doesn't do drugs etc, but every now and again she'll eat the stuff from the bulk bins without paying for it. The supermarket calls it theft, she calls it sampling, but under the current laws she is a criminal.

John down the road pays his taxes, doesn't steal etc, but every now and again his wife gives him lip and he slaps her one - only to keep her in her place and stop her from giving him lip, yet he is a criminal.

Should we make all laws illegal? Or just the ones we don't like because they get in the way of what we like to do?

[shrub]

the people most vehemently opposed are usually the ones most passionate about tougher sentences for violent crime. The word "hypocrisy" springs to mind...

[Coldrider]

Where did anyone claim that this was going to stop children being murdered? Winston has already explained pretty clearly the reasons for the change.
How would you know if a shit load are never investigated.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4668445/Police-fail-child-abuse-victims-report-finds

:shit:

[Number One]

How would you know if a shit load are never investigated.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4668445/Police-fail-child-abuse-victims-report-finds

:shit:

Oh dear you did it...you started me. They are NOT doing a good job at all with this stuff!

Recent personal experience highlights a HUGE issue here...especially for kids that are very vunerable. I will be taking things further with the police complaints authority...especially given the comments from District commander Tusha Penny. She fed me a line of bullshit telling me that my son was the first kid with a 'developmental delay' that they had performed an evidential interview on...psychologists and ACC beg to differ! LIES LIES LIES.

They fucked up in our case...thankfully the abuser is actually putting his hand up and pleading guilty but if not he would've been able to get off scott free because of the poor police work done with the interviewing of my boy and 'unlawfully laid charges'.

I am taking it further...it's bloody disgusting the unprofessional and uncaring treatment we have had from the 'investigative team'

BTW I have nothing but respect and admiration for all the frontline cops that we dealt with...they were magic and respectful and caring. Pity once you get to the desk jockies you feel they don't really give a shit.

rant over

[Winston001]

How would you know if a shit load are never investigated.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4668445/Police-fail-child-abuse-victims-report-finds

:shit:

Yes that is a shock that the policeing team for child abuse got no support or help, meaning reports were not actioned or else brushed aside. Police officers are parents too and I imagine there has been a lot of soul-searching.

However we can't complain that Section 59 (which provides a defence for disciplining your children) has resulted in the police ignoring complaints. The huge outrush of emotion over that awfully worded petition arose because 88% of people wanted to hit their kids - lawfully. Or alternatively, 88% were worried they'd be prosecuted for a simple hit on the behind.

You can't have it both ways - complaining about the police prosecuting parents and complaining they are not prosecuting parents.

Which is it to be?

[shrub]

The huge outrush of emotion over that awfully worded petition arose because 88% of people wanted to hit their kids - lawfully. Or alternatively, 88% were worried they'd be prosecuted for a simple hit on the behind.

I loved that referrendum - kind of like "have you ceased beating your wife?".


You can't have it both ways - complaining about the police prosecuting parents and complaining they are not prosecuting parents.

Which is it to be?

Police can prosecute parents as long as they're not people like us - good honest white middle class Christians who voted for that NICE Mr "what Limo sale?" Key.

[Coldrider]

The reality is Winston that the cops got snowed under, when questioned one of the D's said he put hand on heart and all except 29 were resolved (from 121 cases in a two month period), an outright lie and sorry for the kids involved.
I think it is a female D that blew the whistle.
It has nothing to do with section 59, and Howard Broad is in the gun, Rob Pope had an alert on this so he could save face politically, the Dom was very interesting reading this morning.