Smacking kids?

[MSTRS]

It's not over yet....

[Skyryder]

Whose rights need to be considered first?. If you put the childrens "right" not to be smacked before the parents "right" to discipline their children, then you have the tail wagging the dog. This is a doctor Phil quote, and sums it nicely.

Oh, and Sky, how bout stopping with the "thrashing with a 4x2" comments, noone here condones that sort of carry on, we are talking slap across the back of the hand/bottom with a hand only, and its annoying every time you use that gross exaggeration.

Criminal Acquittals

In contrast to the above examples of convictions where section 59 was raised unsuccessfully, there are a number of media reports of jury trials where the defendant was acquitted in circumstances where significant force was used. Indeed, all the below examples regard incidents where the punishment was carries out using an implement.



* A jury in the High Court at Palmerston North acquitted a man accused of chaining his “wayward” 14-year old step-daughter to himself, from charges of kidnapping and cruelty[47]. It was reported that the defendant’s counsel (a QC) successfully utilized a defence of “tough love” without having to call evidence, stating “the important thing about that chain is this: she was not chained to a wall, she was chained to a human being and that human being was prepared to go with her.”
* A jury in the North Shore District Court acquitted an Auckland man of assault after he took a belt to his stepchild, who suffers from severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as punishment for continually running on to the road[48]. The father claimed it was the only way of preventing this behaviour. Conversely, it was reported that a psychologist told the Court that a child with ADHD “should never be subjected to physical violence”. The acquittal occurred as a result of a retrial ordered by the Court of Appeal following appeal from the original conviction by jury in the District Court. The report notes the father’s lawyer as stating that she explained to the jury that the matter was one of “spare the rod and spoil the child”. The lawyer also commented to the reporter that the verdict was a rebuke for the view advocating repeal, stating “this was a resounding ‘no, get lost’ by the jury”.
* A jury in the Hamilton District Court acquitted a Ngaruawahia man who struck his 12-year-old daughter with a hosepipe, finding that the force was reasonable per section 59[49]. Police photos showed that the assault left the girl with a raised 15 cm lump across her back. This verdict was strongly criticised by the Commissioner for Children, Roger McLay, who also advocated repeal of the defence saying children should have the same protection under the law as adults. He further stated “if he had hit his wife in the same way, it undoubtedly would have been an assault.” In contrast, the successful defendant stated “ I think it proves that the public supports parents’ rights to discipline their children.”
* A jury in the Napier District Court acquitted a man from a charge of assault for an incident where the man struck his son several times on the buttocks with a piece of wood, finding that the force was reasonable under section 59[50]. A paediatrician stated that the injuries the boy received must have been caused by “considerable force”. This case resulted in the Paediatric Society calling for a law change.[51]
* Other instances include a judge acquitting a man under section 59 in the Christchurch District Court for hitting his daughter with a doubled-over belt[52] and a Napier District Court jury being unable to make a finding regarding an incident where it was alleged a man assaulted his son with a stick[53].

Where's the gross exaggertion??

Skyryder

[kro]

We won't see eye to eye on this dude. To me these are two polar opposites, I am talking about discipline, you are talking about criminal abuse/assault.
I do not condone cruel, or sadistic anything, but I do defend my ability to be able to discipline my children effectively.

See, the problem as I see it is, we legislate to the minority cases every single time, and in the process we handicap the non offending majority, who end up being disadvantaged by the minoritys shitty behaviour, or lack of self control.

This is one of my pet hates, it's knee jerk legislation. The root cause of the issue that Bradford is trying to address is actually domestic violence. Why isn't this being addressed as exactly that?. I don't call a beating with a jug cord, or a length of tee tree branch "smacking", I call it domestic violence, as does everyone I know, so why is this being addressed througha "smacking" bill?

We are instead trying to address the problem by condemning all forms of physical punishment. Once again, the minority fucks it up for the rest of us, who aren't violent, abusive, sadistic wankers, but concerned loving parents.

[Skyryder]

Nowhere in Bradford's bill does she prohibit smacking other than for corrective purposes. Children's behavour can be corrected without having to resort to violence, smacking or other painful measures. (personal experiance) Call it what you will but any kind of action that inflicts pain is violence. This has nothing to do minorities bringing the rest of us 'down' to their level or any other level for that matter.

The simple fact of the matter is that society (juries) can not determine what is reasonable force and what is not. That Kro is the crux of the problem and becasue of it violence is continuing to be inflicted upon them.

Now you and I may agree to disagree, that the examples that I posted on acquittals’ are excessive (domestic violence??) but each of the juries believed that the parent had used reasonable force and aquitted them on that basis.

So reasonable force becomes subjective and the result of this is that some children are being subject to a level of violence that if inflicted on you or I would constitute assault. I think this needs to be addressed by the opponents of Bradford's bill; in that this does not constitute assault if committed on ones own children and defenceless children at that. I find that more than disturbing given the fact that so many parents etc see this as acceptable.

Somewhere in this tread I have posted the wording of Bradford's change to section 59. Take a good hard look at it. I meant a hard, hard look with an open mind. It does not prevent smacking as many opponents of the bill falsely maintain. It's not perfect. No legislation is. And it will not prevent seriouse abuse. But in the fullness of time I am sure that it too (Bradford's ammendment) will come under scrutny of the courts.............and rightly so in my opinion............for other reasons that do not come under the scope of this thread.

The opponets of Bradfords's bill need to understand that those parents who inflict injury on their children will no longer have the defence of reasonable force to 'hide' behind.

Skyryder

[MSTRS]

....
The simple fact of the matter is that society (juries) can not determine what is reasonable force and what is not. .... Amazing what a clever lawyer can achieve

So reasonable force becomes subjective and the result of this is that some children are being subject to a level of violence that if inflicted on you or I would constitute assault. A simple touch on the shoulder (if unwanted) constitutes assault. No force is needed, to satisfy the law


... It's not perfect. No legislation is. And it will not prevent serious abuse. But in the fullness of time I am sure that it too (Bradford's amendment) will come under scrutiny of the courts.............and rightly so in my opinion............for other reasons that do not come under the scope of this thread. Courts do not set law, only interpret.




The big (and only) problem is that Bradford seeks to remove a part of law, without replacing it with something clearer/more workable. In fact, she will withdraw her action if anyone manages to insert a qualifier.

[peasea]

As a parent I think I'm qualified to comment. I've stated before on this site that I smacked my kid's bums when they were young; not a lot I might add, they're smart cookies and learned fast. It didn't take many smacks to get things straight and often when they were toddlers a sharp clap and a stern "no" did the trick. No need for physical contact at all. Just the THOUGHT of a smack was deterrent enough. Now they're teenagers and just the neatest of people but I firmly believe that those early smacks on the bum were critical.

The rest was hard work and consistency.

[Daffyd]

I brought up five kids, and smacked them when I deemed it necessary.
(Very seldom as it happens). Since they have grown up they have all said to me that those occasional smacks were all that were needed to straighten tham out.
They have told me, and I know, that they have the utmost respect for me.

[Skyryder]

As a parent I think I'm qualified to comment. I've stated before on this site that I smacked my kid's bums when they were young; not a lot I might

That right is/will not be removed from Bradford's bill.

Skyryder


I brought up five kids, and smacked them when I deemed it necessary.
(Very seldom as it happens). Since they have grown up they have all said to me that those occasional smacks were all that were needed to straighten tham out.
They have told me, and I know, that they have the utmost respect for me.

See my reply to Peasea

Skyryder


The big (and only) problem is that Bradford seeks to remove a part of law, without replacing it with something clearer/more workable.

Well there you go then. Give her something better.

Skyryder

[peasea]

Give her something better.

A high-speed lead implant perhaps?

[peasea]

I brought up five kids, and smacked them when I deemed it necessary.
(Very seldom as it happens). Since they have grown up they have all said to me that those occasional smacks were all that were needed to straighten tham out.
They have told me, and I know, that they have the utmost respect for me.

Bravo, I just hope your offspring won't have anyone (read government interventionists) interferring with the way they bring up your grandchildren; with their own upbringing to use as a sensible reference point I'm sure they can mete out the discipline all on their own.


Five??? That's brave, how did you ever afford a bike?

[Daffyd]

Bravo, I just hope your offspring won't have anyone (read government interventionists) interferring with the way they bring up your grandchildren; with their own upbringing to use as a sensible reference point I'm sure they can mete out the discipline all on their own.


Five??? That's brave, how did you ever afford a bike?

I waited until they all left home. Funny four of them-all boys-had bikes before me. Apart from a commuter back in the 80's.

[MSTRS]

Well there you go then. Give her something better.

Skyryder

She has as much interest in anything but removal as I have in giving her one

[SPman]

.. There is a HUGE difference between smacking and beating....
Indeed there is and it's a shame a lot of people who should know better can't differentiate and step over the line.
A smack with the palm of an open hand is rather different to a fist, vigorously applied to the head or a belt, stick, or other implement that is often used.

[Squeak the Rat]

I would so love to interview Sue:

Q: Sue, why do you think people are against the bill?

S: People have been misinformed about the intention of the bill. It's not about criminalising parents, it's about stopping child abuse.

Q: Do you think that it's an emotional issue for a lot of people.

S: It probably is to some extent.

Q: So you expect average kiwi parents to be able to rationalise with their children, when you as the leader of a political party are finding it difficult to rationalise with the majority of this countries adults on this bill because they are not understanding your intent and are reacting on emotion?

S: Ummm, ahhhh, [wipes face with hand and hunches over] ummm ahhh

Q: Sue, you are a fucking dipshit. Goodnight.

[kro]

That Kro is the crux of the problem and becasue of it violence is continuing to be inflicted upon them.Skyryder

Dude, I understand your viewpoint, and appreciate your honesty, what I am trying to come back with , is the suggestion that the govt stop tip toeing around the deeper social issue.

[Grahameeboy]

Just lately I have come to the conclusion that a lot of people in this country are complainers and seem to agree with their right to drink and drive and kick shit out of kids......obviously reluctant to let go of the good ol' days.

Give the Bill a chance. It may work it may not but at least the Govt is trying.

I am sure the Police will exercise correct policing and if most people are against it then there will be no old biddy's to worry about dobbin parents in.

There is a problem with child abuse.......maybe it should not be called 'Anti-Smacking' and instead 'Child Protection' Law which I suspect would not have been less controversial.

Maybe this case will be different under the proposed Law..Mother was aquitted..........

Timaru mother two months ago, who was charged with hitting her 13-year-old son with a cane and horse riding whip, is proof enough an urgent law change is needed.

[The_Dover]

Just lately I have come to the conclusion that a lot of people in this country are complainers and seem to agree with their right to drink and drive and kick shit out of kids......obviously reluctant to let go of the good ol' days.

Give the Bill a chance. It may work it may not but at least the Govt is trying.

I am sure the Police will exercise correct policing and if most people are against it then there will be no old biddy's to worry about dobbin parents in.

There is a problem with child abuse.......maybe it should not be called 'Anti-Smacking' and instead 'Child Protection' Law which I suspect would not have been less controversial.

Maybe this case will be different under the proposed Law..Mother was aquitted..........

Timaru mother two months ago, who was charged with hitting her 13-year-old son with a cane and horse riding whip, is proof enough an urgent law change is needed.

Fuck you are an idiot gaymeboy.

Driving pissed and beating the shit out of your kids is ALREADY FUCKING ILLEGAL YOU RETARD.

Disciplining kids and having a drink or two with friends/dinner/alone and then driving home is not and neither should it be.

Do you want the fucking government to wipe your arse for you, incase you get shit on your hands??

[MSTRS]

... but at least the Govt is trying.
....

They sure are, and so, my friend, are you in these 2 topical threads

[MisterD]

Q: Sue, you are a fucking dipshit. Goodnight.

In a nutshell, StR. What gets me is this idiotic mantra she spouts about "giving children the same rights as adults" WTF? Kids don't have rights, their parents have them on their behalf, that's why they're called "minors"....what's next, ask the kid, not the parent for consent for medical treatment?

[BigG]

The problem is we live in a very angry society and some parents smack there kids when angry, this is a big no no. I agree with smacking but the inforcer has to be a stable person. I brought up 5 kids and had to disaplin them but I would be incontrol of my emotions and make sure I wasnt smacking in anger. Now the kids are all growed up and thumpin the shit out of me! Na just kiddin they bring there kids up in a simmilar invireoment ( smack in Love):yes:

[Indiana_Jones]

" A jury in the North Shore District Court acquitted an Auckland man of assault after he took a belt to his stepchild, who suffers from severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as punishment for continually running on to the road[48]. The father claimed it was the only way of preventing this behaviour. "

Where's the problem here?

The dumb kid shouldn't be going out onto the road, tell you what I bet he didn't do it much after that.

-Indy


In a nutshell, StR. What gets me is this idiotic mantra she spouts about "giving children the same rights as adults" WTF? Kids don't have rights, their parents have them on their behalf, that's why they're called "minors"....what's next, ask the kid, not the parent for consent for medical treatment?

Agreed.

They want to give kids "rights" but kids can't be charged with murder etc.....that sounds fair ?/?

-Indy

[Flatcap]

Timaru mother two months ago, who was charged with hitting her 13-year-old son with a cane and horse riding whip, is proof enough an urgent law change is needed.

How will a law change alter the fact that the jury at that particular trial were retards?

[peasea]

In a nutshell, StR. What gets me is this idiotic mantra she spouts about "giving children the same rights as adults" WTF? Kids don't have rights, their parents have them on their behalf, that's why they're called "minors"....what's next, ask the kid, not the parent for consent for medical treatment?

I can see the headline now:
"Child demands machine turned off to gain father's bike"

[Skyryder]

How will a law change alter the fact that the jury at that particular trial were retards?

Dumb fucking question needs a dumb fucking answer.

It won't...............unless you have a time machine that can go back in the past.

Skyryder

[kro]

I think it's a valid question. If it's happened once, it will happen again Sky.
All that aside, the bill gets another hearing in Parliament today. We shall see if Politicians are like that Jury I guess. The level of opposition from the public seems to be very very high.

[Finn]

I see John Key is supporting the bill. Very dangerous move.

[Squeak the Rat]

I see John Key is supporting the bill. Very dangerous move.

Time to dust off the passport.....

[ManDownUnder]

....what's next, ask the kid, not the parent for consent for medical treatment?


Kids sueing parents for various misdemeanors... improper upbringing etc. A la the US model.

My personal problem with the whole thing is the simple fact it's not going to stop abuse. The abusers are breaking the law now, so when a revised version of that same law comes along... they'll... still be breaking it!

So what's changed?

...fuck off....

[Finn]

Time to dust off the passport.....

I've been keeping it polished for quite a while.

[Squeak the Rat]

Dear John,

I am deeply disappointed that you are now backing a law that you then intend to not be policed. I sincerely hope that the same instructions are given to Child Youth and Family as the damage done to a family through these channels can be equally as traumatic and damaging.

Myself and my partner are currently considering having children. At best this will make us delay our decision for a few years to see what happens. At worst we will either not have kids or move overseas.

Either way, I feel more strongly about this bill than anything else that is affecting our country. I am deeply disappointed that National has backed down on this. If we couldn't trust your support on this fundamental issue I don't believe there is any point of giving National my (until now) guaranteed vote next election.

Put simply, you have lost my vote.

Regards,

[oldrider]

As I have said before, we have the choice of a "Red" Labour vote, or a "Blue" Labour vote!

Or any colour you like as long as it is "Socialist", welcome to the new "Freedom".

The Politicians are invading our very own homes, soon all our real freedoms will be lost and even bowel movements will be by legislative rule. :angry: John.

[jrandom]

... soon all our real freedoms will be lost and even bowel movements will be by legislative rule.

"No shit without a chit!"

Indeed.

[Phurrball]

As I have said before, we have the choice of a "Red" Labour vote, or a "Blue" Labour vote!

Or any colour you like as long as it is "Socialist", welcome to the new "Freedom".

The Politicians are invading our very own homes, soon all our real freedoms will be lost and even bowel movements will be by legislative rule. :angry: John.

What planet are you on?

Neither the 'blue' or the 'red' strike me as remotely <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism">socialist</a> - both have embraced the free market and there seems to be no going back now...only the Greens or maybe the Alliance seem anywhere close to socialist.

Surely you're not trying to tell me that things were LESS socialist in the old days? Rob Muldoon and think big, universal superannuation anyone?

The ammendment proposed today with the agreement of the Nats represents a specific statutory enshrinement of the de minimis principle (that I referred to somewhere else in this thread - I think)

'Inconsequential' is a handy word. At least the legal defence of physical discipline is being repealed - the ammendment will give society time to adjust and move towards a less violent society where striking children for discipline is not acceptable. Surprised this thread isn't a bit more active.

Ross.

[Skyryder]

I think it's a valid question. If it's happened once, it will happen again Sky.
All that aside, the bill gets another hearing in Parliament today. We shall see if Politicians are like that Jury I guess. The level of opposition from the public seems to be very very high.

Read the question Kro. It asks How will a law change alter the fact that the jury at that particular trial were retards? The question refers to a specific event in the past. Of course it's not a valid question. There's no valid answer to it.

That 'it' may happen in the future??? Without Bradford's bill most certainly. Bradford's bill if passed will ensure that it will not. It will not stop serious abuse as I have mentioned earlier but her bill will stop those parents who inflict injury on their children from hiding behind the now current legislation of reasonable force.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

As I have said before, we have the choice of a "Red" Labour vote, or a "Blue" Labour vote!

Or any colour you like as long as it is "Socialist", welcome to the new "Freedom".

The Politicians are invading our very own homes, soon all our real freedoms will be lost and even bowel movements will be by legislative rule. :angry: John.

Wrong OR. See Finns post. It's Red/Green vote or Blue/Green vote.

Key is well aware that no matter what he does he will still get the majority of the so called family values and christian votes. NZ are not traditionaly one issue voters so he has nothing to lose politiclay by supporting Bradford. He is 'mucking up to both the Maori Party who support Bradford and of course the Greens.' His true agenda is in line with ACT. It's just that Kiwi's take so little notice of politics that they listen to the first opposition that they hear and take it to be the gospel truth. Bradford's bill is but one example.

In short OR Key is hedging his bets. Maori or the Greens.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Dear John,

I am deeply disappointed that you are now backing a law that you then intend to not be policed. I sincerely hope that the same instructions are given to Child Youth and Family as the damage done to a family through these channels can be equally as traumatic and damaging.

Myself and my partner are currently considering having children. At best this will make us delay our decision for a few years to see what happens. At worst we will either not have kids or move overseas.

Either way, I feel more strongly about this bill than anything else that is affecting our country. I am deeply disappointed that National has backed down on this. If we couldn't trust your support on this fundamental issue I don't believe there is any point of giving National my (until now) guaranteed vote next election.

Put simply, you have lost my vote.

Regards,



Yes it does show the duplicity of Key. He has longed campaigned against Bradford's bill but now that he has realised that he is unable to stop it's passage into law he now comes out in support. There's a word for this.....Janus.............being two faced.

Skyryder

[MSTRS]

There's a word for this.....Janus.............being two faced.

Skyryder

Also known as...politics. None of them can really be trusted.

[Indiana_Jones]

Also known as...politics. None of them can really be trusted.

Also known as,


<img src="http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/63/006_Alec_Trevelyan.jpg">

Alec Trevelyan, 006

-Indy