Anti-smacking law amended

[Deviant Esq]

Just on the news. Helen Clark and John Key have met and compromised over the bill. Wording was entered into the bill to allow policemen the discretion whether or not to prosecute parents, if they believed that the incident was inconsequential.

Good in that, on the face of it, ordinary decent parents won't be criminalised for just parenting... but it seems it will be under the sole discretion of the attending officer. I see a potential for mistakes in that. And not so mistaken "mistakes".

Thoughts?

Edit: Whoops, probably should have added this to the existing (but very long) thread. If a mod feels that this should in there, feel free to move it. :)

[Karma]

Is that like the discretion they can show to speeders?

[MSTRS]

The pricks just can't help themselves. Just have to make sure that there is some subjective ambiguity in there, don't they. What a crock.

[SPman]

To quote "No Right Turn"
"Such an amendment is not even necessary - the bill presently has the numbers. Instead, it is purely about spin control, about Labour trying to limit the political damage it has taken. But the damage has already been done, and the votes already lost. Backing down at the last minute will not get them back.

Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you."

[mstriumph]

bad descision to leave to the police

- say they can be shown to have overlooked an incident where later there is an instance of full-blown kiddy-brutalizing ending in serious trauma and all fingers will be pointed at the hapless plod involved ........

- to prevent such liability i'd say they'd have no option but to pursue every complaint they receive

bad law

[98tls]

I think it was more "shit imagine the votes we are going to lose if we dont change it" thing..........the very fact that this thing is an issue does nothing but remind me how pathetic this place has become..........theres enough mindless the wrong way round baseball capped jeans 1/2 way down there arse wearing dipshits around already.......imagine in 15 years time how bad it will be.........for the sake of a kick up the arse both there lives and ours could have been much better..........sad

[SPman]

.........theres enough mindless the wrong way round baseball capped jeans 1/2 way down there arse wearing dipshits around already.......imagine in 15 years time how bad it will be.........for the sake of a kick up the arse both there lives and ours could have been much better..........sad
I don't think a "kick up the arse" would make stuff all difference ....a lot of them are like that, despite, or because of, to many "kicks up the arse"!

[yod]

shitty situation either way...the government can't really win can they

before: dodgy parents can get away with abuse by saying its discipline "Govt should be doing something about this!!!"
after: non-dodgy parents can get done for legitimate discipline "Govt can't tell me what to do!!"

as for subjective ambiguity....impossible to avoid; how hard is a smack thats ok and how hard is a smack thats not? umm...8.671 foot pounds per square inch??

and if you think they should be sticking to principles...sorry mate, no offense but thats just naive. it doesn't matter who's in power, the party thats in tries to KEEP the voters with legislation/budget/etc, the party that's not basically just says the opposition is wrong so vote for us

cynicism breeds lugubriosity and and mentally salubrious governments are few and far between (maybe a fascist dictatorship might be a nice change).....i know, my fault for even opening my err....fingers

[Skyryder]

Instead, it is purely about spin control, about Labour trying to limit the political damage it has taken. But the damage has already been done, and the votes already lost. Backing down at the last minute will not get them back.

Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you."

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.

2 Labour have not backed down as they have nothing to back down from. (they have supported the removal of section 59 from the outset)

3 The ammendment in reality is a non issue as the Police already have powers of discreation to prosecute or not.

4 Key has hopped on the bandwagon knowing full well that Bradford has the numbers to pass her Bill.

5 As I mentioned in another thread Key is hedging his bets for a future coalition with either the Maori Party or the Greens.

I think your comment (Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you.") in this case applies more to the Nats and Key, than to any perceived betrayal by Labour.

Skyryder

[Grahameeboy]

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.

2 Labour have not backed down as they have nothing to back down from. (they have supported the removal of section 59 from the outset)

3 The ammendment in reality is a non issue as the Police already have powers of discreation to prosecute or not.

4 Key has hopped on the bandwagon knowing full well that Bradford has the numbers to pass her Bill.

5 As I mentioned in another thread Key is hedging his bets for a future coalition with either the Maori Party or the Greens.

I think your comment (Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you.") in this case applies more to the Nats and Key, than to any perceived betrayal by Labour.

Skyryder

Brilliant post......and does it matter if it is a vote winner if it helps deal with abuse of kids...............geeze is it only the few who see the bigger picture

[yod]

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.

2 Labour have not backed down as they have nothing to back down from. (they have supported the removal of section 59 from the outset)

3 The ammendment in reality is a non issue as the Police already have powers of discreation to prosecute or not.

4 Key has hopped on the bandwagon knowing full well that Bradford has the numbers to pass her Bill.

5 As I mentioned in another thread Key is hedging his bets for a future coalition with either the Maori Party or the Greens.

I think your comment (Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you.") in this case applies more to the Nats and Key, than to any perceived betrayal by Labour.

Skyryder


Brilliant post......and does it matter if it is a vote winner if it helps deal with abuse of kids...............geeze is it only the few who see the bigger picture

couldnt have put it better myself

[Skyryder]

......and does it matter if it is a vote winner if it helps deal with abuse of kids...............geeze is it only the few who see the bigger picture


I agree.........this should have never been the issue that many have made it. The Christian right mobilised against Labour................not the Green's. In all the media reports I saw it was Bradford Bill with Labour's support. The Christian right deliberatly mistorted the facts of Bradford's bill so as to mount a political attack against Clarke and Labour. Key's opposition to Bradford's bill only endorced the Christian's right opposition to it.

While Key's about face suggests a degree of competance in political reality it more than suggests his lack of moral fibre in using defenceless childen as a means to a political end. I personaly find that offensive.

Skyryder

[Curious_AJ]

personally, id say that its good that it was atleast amended to be a bit more lenient to parents, parenting.. and not brutilizing... however... you would get individual police peoples who would prosecute a person for a smack on the bum, and you get the ones that wouldnt... its all to do with the police person's oppinion on the bill... thats screwed...

[Skyryder]

personally, id say that its good that it was atleast amended to be a bit more lenient to parents, parenting.. and not brutilizing... however... you would get individual police peoples who would prosecute a person for a smack on the bum, and you get the ones that wouldnt... its all to do with the police person's oppinion on the bill... thats screwed...


No it is not. It has nothing to do with the police's opinion on the bill. The ammendment allows discreation from prosecution on the grounds that a prosecution would be "so inconsequential" there was no public interest in it going ahead."

Skyryder

[oldrider]

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.

2 Labour have not backed down as they have nothing to back down from. (they have supported the removal of section 59 from the outset)

3 The ammendment in reality is a non issue as the Police already have powers of discreation to prosecute or not.

4 Key has hopped on the bandwagon knowing full well that Bradford has the numbers to pass her Bill.

5 As I mentioned in another thread Key is hedging his bets for a future coalition with either the Maori Party or the Greens.

I think your comment (Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you.") in this case applies more to the Nats and Key, than to any perceived betrayal by Labour.

Skyryder

One thing our politicians love is a gamble, especially when they believe it's fixed in their favour and called on their terms.

Like tossing a coin: "Heads they win" and "Tails we lose"

The bill will be passed and it will be all forgotten in the clamour for the handouts promised in the run up to the next election!

Don't worry, they will all be voted back in next time and the circus will resume again! :brick: (Cynically) John.

[Curious_AJ]

i believe the anti-smacking thing is bull... anti-beating would be better... but theres nothing wrong with a little smack every now and again...it showed ME what was right from wrong, but never hurt me in any way...

[kro]

Oh hurray, not only do the police have to do the policing, but now they have to decide what actually constitutes a criminal act. Way to palm off the responsibility to someone else Labour govt.

This won't end well.

[Squeak the Rat]

It's going to come down to caselaw sadly. Basically the Police will have to "test the waters". Its a crap way of doing it and its basically shafting the Police to take the wrap. Great more negative publicity. Well i aint locking up any mothers smacking their defiant children. Sue Bradford and Helen Clark can come to it themselves!

I just feel sorry for the "test" cases that will go before the Courts. What a crock.

The Govt should of been fairer and given clearer direction to the Police.

I couldn't agree more. And I feel sorry for the first cop who uses his discretion to not prosecute some one who smacked their child, to later find out real abuse had been happening behind the scenes.

[Grahameeboy]

i believe the anti-smacking thing is bull... anti-beating would be better... but theres nothing wrong with a little smack every now and again...it showed ME what was right from wrong, but never hurt me in any way...

Agree, the name sucks and has probably caused a lot more issues than if it had been called 'Child Abuse Act' or something....however, the point of the Act is to avoid abusive parents getting around the Law.

Okay, the Police may have teething problems, however, the intent of the Act is a positive step and there is enough cop bashing that I am surprised that some here are saying "well what if they are wrong".

I am sure that if the Police do not take action and get it wrong the first time, they will not the second time which is still not late.....I know the Police feel shafted, however, I am sure they feel the same when they prosecute a 'real abuse' case under the current Law and the parents get away with it so at least now they have a better chance to do their job and protect abused kids.

There is always a shiney side to a coin.

[Grahameeboy]

I couldn't agree more. And I feel sorry for the first cop who uses his discretion to not prosecute some one who smacked their child, to later find out real abuse had been happening behind the scenes.

And I feel sorry for cops now who prosecute under current Law only to see Parents get out of it.............

[Grahameeboy]

The idea of police role, function, purpose, or mission in society requires us to think beyond the technical and operational aspects of police work, and consider, if you will, the philosophy of policing, and/or more generally, the place of legitimate authority in society, as well as a number of larger issues which may seem like only of academic interest. However, such insights have important value. Glaeser (2000), for example, makes the case that policing is essentially a spatial practice (control of space), thus fulfilling the first of Max Weber's (1930) operational characteristics of a state: territoriality, legitimacy, and monopolization on the use of force. Policing is also one of those few lines of work, like teaching and medicine, which have intimate connections with social life, social progress, and social change. Too narrow a view of the police role is bad, and care must also be taken to avoid too broad a view. Scholars therefore, sometimes use the words "role" and "function" interchangeably. Let's begin with an ideal set of police functions which were identified by Goldstein (1977) a long time ago:

To prevent and control conduct widely recognized as threatening to life and property

To aid individuals who are in danger of physical harm, such as the victims of violent attack

To facilitate the movement of people and vehicles

To assist those who cannot care for themselves, the intoxicated, the addicted, the mentally ill, the physically disables, the old, and the young

To resolve conflict, whether it be between individuals, groups or individuals, or individuals and their government

To identify problems that have the potential for becoming more serious problems

To create and maintain a feeling of security in communities

However, in order to understand the ideals, one must understand how they are analyzed. Here are some basic analytical terms used by academics, sociologists mostly, when analyzing the role of police in society:

Role -- this is a sociological term that allows us to talk about the characteristics of various people and things without reference to the actual people involved. An example of a role is the wheel that spins in the mouse cage. A status is the mouse. It doesn't matter what kind of mouse you put in the cage; the fact it has a wheel means that spinning is the kind of behavior we would expect in that role. Police have accumulated several roles ("wheels") over the years that they cannot shed or have extreme difficulty shedding. It's hard to exit a role. Here are two instances involving commonly agreed-upon roles for police in society:

(1) Unquestionable Use of Force - this role was first suggested by the criminal justice scholar Egon Bittner. It means somebody in society has to play the role of "bully" you can't talk back to - it's unquestionable or indisputable authority. Police don't have to give you any explanation or take any guff off you when they're using force or pretty much engaged in getting down to business.

(2) Information Gathering - this role was envisioned and implemented by J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI. Although society has its national security agencies, nobody is better positioned in society, with the technology, with the know-how, and with the experience, to start collecting domestic intelligence information, if they wanted to. Police cannot help collecting more information on citizens than they have a right to know. Information gathering has just been a natural part of their role. Read "New Insights into J. Edgar Hoover's Role" for more about the police role in counterespionage, e.g.



Function -- This is another sociological term that refers to something that has survival value for society or an organization. Police have two kinds of functions: intended and unintended. The unintended functions may resemble roles and, in fact, may be the cause of them, but it's the intended functions (that police may not admit, but are only slightly aware of) that concern us. Here's a list of police functions:

(1) Morals Enforcement - the oldest function in police history, one shared with religion since a lot of law enforcement is about morality or as Manning (2003) argues, is about communication of morals, or as Rabbi Friedman (2005) goes further in saying police are the priests of secular religion.

(2) Class Control - it's been said that outside of Alcoholics Anonymous, there's no better enforcer of American middle class values than the police. They're all about giving their best service to the upwardly mobile middle class. The rich don't need them; they have their own security. And, the police have never been useful in fighting poverty or uplifting the poor in any society. No, police are a middle class institution, and they preserve the class lines very well.

(3) Riot Control - everybody knows that you don't use military force against your own citizens, that's what the police are for.

(4) Order Maintenance - this is the "Woodsy the Owl" idea of "policing" your picnic area before you leave. It's the "order" part of "law & order". It refers to the nonarrest things police do, like give advice, warnings, or assist with graffiti and litter removal. The police function here is to "beautify" society, if you will. It's the basis of the modern community policing movement.

(5) Safety - this is the "green cross" job of making sure that accidents don't happen. The police would love nothing better than to farm out their traffic safety duties to some other agency, but we can't seem to get those meter maids and crossing guards organized into a profession. It's only an historical accident, anyway, that the police took over traffic safety in 1911 because they came up with the idea of street lights.

(6) Service - "Who ya gonna call?" Who else besides the police are there 24/7 to answer every emergency or assist you with directions if you get hungry in the middle of the night. The invention of 911 in 1968 in Haleyville, Alabama of all places is something that many police regret ever happened.

(7) Crime Fighting - Don your costumes, super heros, it's up, up & away. This function is so closely tied up with image and ideology that it's hard to even have a serious discussion about it, but it's supposed to be neutral.



Mandate -- Despite what many in policing believe is the meaning of this term, which can be strictly interpreted as mission objectives or required tasks to be carried out, this is also a term that combines the idea of what the law requires the police to do with a vision of the future, as police help to bring about that future. Probably the most important mandate for law enforcement in general is to uphold their honor and dignity, no matter what else they are tasked to do.



Style -- This is a term that gets at how well a person or agency copes under stress. Later on, we learn all about individual styles, but more important is the notion of departmental styles, and how we can classify police agencies by the secrets they reveal under stress. Style is also established by the demographic characteristics of the population a police agency serves. Hence, we can easily say that federal policing has no "watchman" or community policing style since federal agencies serve too broad a demographic population. Cities tend to get the police style they deserve.



Issue -- This is a term for anything trans-jurisdictional. There's no such thing as a local issue. All issues are at least national in scope. C. Wright Mills in The Sociological Imagination said that an issue is a threat to mores. I'm not a sociologist of mores, but I'd say something becomes a police issue when it involves ethics.



Problem -- I'll defer to the field of sociology for a definition of this term, and my understanding is that a social problem is something that people believe needs to be changed. C. Wright Mills in The Sociological Imagination said that a social problem is a threat to values. I'm not a sociologist of values, but I'd say that a police problem exists when the police think it's right to do one thing, and the public thinks it's right to do another thing.



Image & Ideology -- The word "image" is the public relations spin that an agency puts out. It's pretty much synonymous with words like "mystique" or "aura." The word "ideology" refers to a belief in something as true when it's actually false, or at the base of it, false. Ideologies are created by putting a positive spin on something negative. Ideologies also always rest on a lie. It's the opposite of the word "institution" because anything that reaches the level of social institution must rest on a kernel of truth, at least according to the great sociologist, Durkheim.



Socialization & Personality -- Socialization is the internalization of norms, when an employee takes on all the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the organization, also known as the Great American buy-in. There are two approaches to the study of police personality: (1) the predispositional approach - before coming to police work, the employee has strong core elements at the center of his/her personality, like a cabbage; (2) the socialization approach - once coming into police work, the employee loses whatever center they had, and whatever was at their core is replaced by reflections or layers of organizational norms, attitudes, beliefs, and values, like an onion.



There are many other terms you'll run into with the academic study of policing. It's one of the most over-analyzed professions on the planet. Perhaps the best that one can do when embarking for the first time into the serious, scholarly study of policing is to keep an open mind, and to think broadly about policing. It's a whole lot more than simply taking phone calls and rushing to the scene of a crime:

[MisterD]

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.

Of course it's a fucking Labour bill, last time it was mooted it was Maharey that was pushing it - SB is just the dumb prop running the ball up for them (in John Tamihere's words) cos she only has to pander to the lunatic 5% that vote green.



3 The ammendment in reality is a non issue as the Police already have powers of discreation to prosecute or not.


The police disagree on that point, as was fairly well publicised. When it comes to domestic violence, they have no discretion they must make an arrest and prosecute.

This cook-up changes nothing, parents who smack are still criminalised. Police will err on the side of prosecution because a) it's an easy "win" and makes their results look good a b) they'll be scared shitless that they might not prosecute and then have another Kahui on their hands..

[MisterD]

Brilliant post......and does it matter if it is a vote winner if it helps deal with abuse of kids...............geeze is it only the few who see the bigger picture

Yeah, right. This bill will prevent child abuse in exactly the same way as the dog-chipping legislation prevented the recent dog attacks.

It's just increasing the regulation and compliance costs on the already law-abiding members of society. It'll do diddly-squat to affect those who beat kids to within and inch of their lives and beyond.

[Finn]

geeze is it only the few who see the bigger picture

Or could it be that the majority just think you're a fool?

[jeremysprite]

Did anyone go to the rally/event on Wednesday? I liked what a couple of the guys said - Sue Bradford promised to withdraw her bill if there was ever an amendment made to it, (or something along those lines, basically the thing that Clarke + Key just did). They challenged her to do so. I wonder if she'll stick to her word....

[Deviant Esq]

The other problem is a kid who crys "wolf". There was a documentary on just that not so long ago, where a problem child (with a history of outrageous lies) under the care of foster parents claimed that the foster Father had beaten him with golf clubs, and all sorts of other wild accusations. CYF, assisted by the police, took the matter very seriously, as they should, but ultimately believed the problem child's word over the foster parents. The foster parents were black listed as such, forbidden from ever looking after foster children again, the children they were looking after removed from their care.

The documentary showed them as ordinary decent parents. The kid had a violence problem and was starting to get into vandalism, and the parents tried their best to keep him in line. So yeah he was smacked and told off, but I doubt he was ever beaten the way he accused them. Under the new bill the foster Father would be arrested and possibly jailed.

[Squeak the Rat]

The documentary showed them as ordinary decent parents. The kid had a violence problem and was starting to get into vandalism, and the parents tried their best to keep him in line. So yeah he was smacked and told off, but I doubt he was ever beaten the way he accused them. Under the new bill the foster Father would be arrested and possibly jailed.

Proponents of the new law do not believe these children exist, and if they do they are the result of bad parenting and that they can be reasoned with using methods like timeout and rationalisation. Therefore maybe the parents should go to jail.

I might do a pamphlet drop at the local primary school urging kids to dial 111 if their parents smack them. That might stir things up a bit......

[Ixion]

,,

There is always a shiney side to a coin.

No there's not. On what do you base that? I just checked 5 coins at random. One had two shiney sides, the other four had no shiney sie. The nature of the treatment of coins, rubbing in pockets, purses etc would seem to direct that wear or abrasion, which will remove the "shine" will occur equally on both sides. One would expect coins to be either unshiney, unworn, on both sides, or worn and dull on both sides.

[Finn]

Do you realise that it's illegal to perform fellatio in Tasmania? I'm sure it still goes on... behind closed doors.

[silverado]

1 This is not a Labour Bill and as such they have no control over Bradford's accepatnce or rejection of any ammendement.


It was originally Steve Maharey's bill but once Labour knew it wasn't going to be popular they found the stupid Greens' to promote it.

They whole lot of them are useless.

[Grahameeboy]

Or could it be that the majority just think you're a fool?

I can live with that...............


Yeah, right. This bill will prevent child abuse in exactly the same way as the dog-chipping legislation prevented the recent dog attacks.

It's just increasing the regulation and compliance costs on the already law-abiding members of society. It'll do diddly-squat to affect those who beat kids to within and inch of their lives and beyond.

Dog chipping is not going to stop 'Dog Rage'.................

I am so impressed that you have a crystal ball.........

Regulations, regulations, what a pesamistic lot you all are.........law abiding citizens will have nothing to worry about with the Law so what is the problem.

Diddly squat...well if it saves the life of 1 kid then the Law is worth it....

[Ixion]

Regulations, regulations, what a pesamistic lot you all are.........law abiding citizens will have nothing to worry about with the Law so what is the problem.

...

Well, that is logically a circular argument. Of course parents (and caregivers) who do not breach the law will have nothing to worry about (except perhaps their sprogs growing up as spoilt arrogant brats).

The worry is that the law may make UN-lawabiding parents out of caring loving parents.

[MisterD]

Diddly squat...well if it saves the life of 1 kid then the Law is worth it....

That's a platitude worthy of Sue Bradford herself. If half the time and effort that has gone into the promotion of this dogs breakfast of a law change, had gone into how to really tackle child abuse, we'd be saving the life of considerably more than one child.

[Grahameeboy]

Well, that is logically a circular argument. Of course parents (and caregivers) who do not breach the law will have nothing to worry about (except perhaps their sprogs growing up as spoilt arrogant brats).

The worry is that the law may make UN-lawabiding parents out of caring loving parents.

Geeze......always a reason against...........something is broken (certainly not this record!) and the Govt are trying to fix it.....they don't have a crystal ball but trying is a positive.


That's a platitude worthy of Sue Bradford herself. If half the time and effort that has gone into the promotion of this dogs breakfast of a law change, had gone into how to really tackle child abuse, we'd be saving the life of considerably more than one child.

That is such an old argument.........the Law is a start...it is also a way to tackle child abuse as well as the Social Worker side of things.

Remember tackling child abuse is very hard to establish when a lot goes on behind closed doors as has been prooven by the recent case so this Law seems to enable less evidence to tackle the abusers and yes like in other Law breaches, mistakes are made and we have to allow the Law to act here to.

Kids need this Law even if you don't.

[Skyryder]

Kids need this Law even if you don't.

Amen to that.

Skyryder

[Ixion]

Something was broken in Irag and George Bush tried to fix it. Was trying positive ?

Bad law is often worse than no law.

'Tis no different to a motorbike. I've known many people try to fix their broken bikes. And by the time they've finished , what was a simple problem that could have been fixed by a professional in a few hours , has turned into a major mess that will cost a fortune to rectify. Good intentions don't count for much. Sometimes if you don't know how to do a job properly you're best not to try.

You are not making any effort to address the logical implications of what you propound. You are just repeating the mantra "child abuse" as a justification for anything.

If there is really such an issue with child abuse, maybe ALL children chould be removed from their parents at birth and raised in state run , licensed institutions, by professionals.See, you cannot show any reason to suppose that your solution will reduce child abuse. But mine will!

So, that would solve the child abuse problem. Sorted. "Oh," you say " but I don't agree with that , I see all sorts of problems ". Not interested, I reply. Child abuse. My solution will definately eliminate it, yours won't. Child abuse. Child abuse. Child abuse justifies the new law. When are you going to bring in your child, to be professionally raised ?

[Squeak the Rat]

I was just thinking...you know what, you geezers are actually moaning about a Law which is being drafted to fight and deal with CHILD ABUSE......and all you can do is knock this attempt....the Govt are not saying it is the best thing since Suzuki....whoops I mean slice bread, but it is a step in the right direction.

Amazing.......

Look it is simple. Step one to stopping child abuse? Criminalise and prosecute child abusers.

If that still doesn't work then look at other methods like making criminals out of my friends and family who are doing the very best that they can.

[Grahameeboy]

Look it is simple. Step one to stopping child abuse? Criminalise and prosecute child abusers.

If that still doesn't work then look at other methods like making criminals out of my friends and family who are doing the very best that they can.




There is no sensible response to that one

[Squeak the Rat]

There is no sensible response to that one

No problem, we don't expect one from you.

[Grahameeboy]

No problem, we don't expect one from you.

That was low.......but expected.........:yes: :sunny:

[Flatcap]

I was just thinking...you know what, you geezers are actually moaning about a Law which is being drafted to fight and deal with CHILD ABUSE. .

I was under the impression that child abuse was illegal already....

....so if it still happens anyway....

....how will a new law stop it....?


...can someone explain that logic to me please....

[Grahameeboy]

I was under the impression that child abuse was illegal already....

....so if it still happens anyway....

....how will a new law stop it....?


...can someone explain that logic to me please....

There was a Child Abuse case a few months ago when the Mother got out of it because she claimed 'reasonable force' and the current Law worked in her favour.

The new Law being drafted is to help improve the fight against child abuse and lower the 'reasoning' for the offence...hence the name 'Anti-Smacking' so that it will not be so easy for real child abusers to abuse the slackness in the current Law and give added protection to the kids.

[Toaster]

Well..... (sigh).... the amendment is bollocks.... the act of smacking is criminalised under the new law regardless, so you are committing a crime if you smack a child unless it falls into some of the weird instances exempted under the law. What good parent wants that around their neck?

It is merely giving the authorities discretion on whether or not to prosecute. SO the cops now have to attend untold thousands of calls from little shits dobbing in their folks for getting a smack after failing to eat their asparagus.

How would you feel with the cops turning up at your home because ya neighbour saw you smack ya kid after they were naughty? They will ask you dozens of questions and pass on your details to CYFS who will then consider the welfare of ya kids too.... more probing.

One of the problems this will cause is massive amounts of paperwork for the police/CYFS tying up their time on more domestic violence files. And don't think that means less time doing road policing. Domestics are only attended by GDB staff, not traffic.

They whole thing sucks. People that beat up kids will continue to do so anyway. It is merely social engineering by a very interfering government.

[Toaster]

add'l.....

poor case law before us has not helped. Smart-ass defence lawyers get people off all sorts of charges on bollocks issues regardless of the fact they were overwhelmingly guilty. I am just an angry man and need to vent my anger.... who wants a spanking!!!!!!!!!

[Grahameeboy]

Well..... (sigh).... the amendment is bollocks.... the act of smacking is criminalised under the new law regardless, so you are committing a crime if you smack a child unless it falls into some of the weird instances exempted under the law. What good parent wants that around their neck?

All we can do is have faith in the Police to interpret the Law as it was intended.

It is merely giving the authorities discretion on whether or not to prosecute. SO the cops now have to attend untold thousands of calls from little shits dobbing in their folks for getting a smack after failing to eat their asparagus.

So if you are in your home eating dinner how will anyone see what happens?

How would you feel with the cops turning up at your home because ya neighbour saw you smack ya kid after they were naughty? They will ask you dozens of questions and pass on your details to CYFS who will then consider the welfare of ya kids too.... more probing.

I agree it would not be nice, however, I agree with random breath road side tests even though I do not drink because I know that it will catch someone who is breaking the Law..............and I doubt the Police will pass this matter to the CYFS...that is taking things to extreme.

One of the problems this will cause is massive amounts of paperwork for the police/CYFS tying up their time on more domestic violence files. And don't think that means less time doing road policing. Domestics are only attended by GDB staff, not traffic.

I guess the massive amounts of paperwork will be for just reason...they have been the power of descretion and I have enough faith in them to do this.
They whole thing sucks. People that beat up kids will continue to do so anyway. It is merely social engineering by a very interfering government.

Same as drink drivers, however, I just feel that we are missing the fact that the Govt is trying to address the problem and lets face it it is not going to be a quick fix is it as it will take years to see what the benefits are.....
..............................

[Flatcap]

There was a Child Abuse case a few months ago when the Mother got out of it because she claimed 'reasonable force' and the current Law worked in her favour.

.

As I understood that case the law was fine but the jury were idiots.

[Grahameeboy]

add'l.....

poor case law before us has not helped. Smart-ass defence lawyers get people off all sorts of charges on bollocks issues regardless of the fact they were overwhelmingly guilty. I am just an angry man and need to vent my anger.... who wants a spanking!!!!!!!!!

Well I am over 16 so I will take the spanking please..............:love: :sunny:

[Toaster]

And that is why the lawyers hand pick the jury...... and challenge out anyone who looks like they will say the magic 'guilty' word. I wont say anymore I am too grumpy.

[Toaster]

Well I am over 16 so I will take the spanking please..............:love: :sunny:

Dude, you live in "Gayport"... I am starting to worry about you fella!

[Grahameeboy]

As I understood that case the law was fine but the jury were idiots.

Maybe so, I do not know but maybe the Law did not help.....but the Draft proposals are a better detterent because those who abuse their kids may think twice and will have to be more careful and will in the end trip up.....

[Grahameeboy]

Dude, you live in "Gayport"... I am starting to worry about you fella!

Thanks for your concern Mr T................it can be appreciated...:msn-wink:

[Flatcap]

Maybe so, I do not know but maybe the Law did not help.....but the Draft proposals are a better detterent because those who abuse their kids may think twice and will have to be more careful and will in the end trip up.....

Aaah - but this is the error in the logic. Those who abuse their children do not think at all. The only thought they will have is how to best hide it after the act.

[Grahameeboy]

Aaah - but this is the error in the logic. Those who abuse their children do not think at all. The only thought they will have is how to best hide it after the act.

Possible true because they know it is hard to get done for it but they might, and I accept it is a big might, think twice with the Draft proposals........

Don't get me wrong I am not saying it will work cause that is not possible, all I am advocating is that the Govt is trying....and that is what most of us do each day............

[Mr. Peanut]

It's got a 1.6km range!

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=98634397&permanent=0

[Biff]

Kids need this Law even if you don't.

And there lies the most common sense statement I've heard relating to this bill so far.

I find is incomprehensible that people are/were anti this bill. It's not about you, the parents, it's about providing much needed additional protection (by way of a deterent) for the wee ones. I think it's pure selfishness to be against this bill, a bill which was only designed to remove the get out of jail free card some parents hide behind after whooping kids.

Wrap up the anti-bill agruements as much as you like, but it sickens me to hear people bleating on about parents having the right to beat their kids, and whining about it being bill affecting civil liberties.

If this bill protects just one child from getting wolloped with a piece of wood, or punishes a parent for doing so then the bill has worked.

[Squeak the Rat]

I find is incomprehensible that people are/were anti this bill. It's not about you, the parents, it's about providing much needed additional protection (by way of a deterent) for the wee ones. I think it's pure selfishness to be against this bill, a bill which was only designed to remove the get out of jail free card some parents hide behind after whooping kids.


The intent of the bill makers may be as you say. But the reality is that it's now illegal for parents to smack their kids. Ergo parents that smack their kids (90% of parents) are criminals and are subject to the whim of a policeman if they are caught.

I seriously challenge any proponent of this bill, those who believe kids should never be smacked, to list a practical step by step guide for my brother to manage his rebellious 5 year old son without smacking.

He often breaks things, goes walkabout, plays on the road, hits his sister, eats stuff from the fridge, plays with matches etc etc.

They tried and used all the normal tools, time out, reasoning (at the time and afterwards), rewarding, even threatening. Sometimes these work, but more often he just keeps pushing when you tell him to stop. The only thing that is gauranteed to stop his bad behaviour after all else fails is a smack. And open handed smack to the bottom - not a clip around the head or jug cord or anything else.

So please tell me what alternative method they should use so that I can stop my family from breaking the law..........

[Mr. Peanut]

If this bill protects just one child from getting wolloped with a piece of wood, or punishes a parent for doing so then the bill has worked.

The current system "protects" children against this sort of thing. I've seen the wonder of the system for myself.

Imagine a game of Chinese whispers spread over 6 different government departments and 3 years.

Now make 90% of parents criminals and repeat :sick:

[Biff]

The intent of the bill makers may be as you say. But the reality is that it's now illegal for parents to smack their kids.

Good. And with the ammendment made to the bill police can now follow a clear steer from the powers that be to only charge the asailant when it's in the public interest and when unreasonable force has been used.

Let common sense prevail.

And yes, I will continue to slap (not beat or hit with an inamimate object or clenched fist) my kids as and when I believe they deserve it.

[Skyryder]

The intent of the bill makers may be as you say. But the reality is that it's now illegal for parents to smack their kids. Ergo parents that smack their kids (90% of parents) are criminals and are subject to the whim of a policeman if they are caught.

I seriously challenge any proponent of this bill, those who believe kids should never be smacked, to list a practical step by step guide for my brother to manage his rebellious 5 year old son without smacking.


Where did you ever get the idea that the proponents of the bill and their suporters belive that kids should never be smacked?? Ahhrrrr yes the Christian Right...........those that have a political agenda and are prepared to use children as a political tool against Labour. Below is the proposed change to section 59 . I have been unable to find section (4 ammendment) The proposal states very clearly where (smacking) can be used.

Proposed replacement o f
sec t i on 59
59 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).

Seems to me your brother's child could be smacked under (c)

Skyryder

[ynot slow]

i was under the impression that it was section59 part which was to be ammended so it took away the justification of what was/is reasonable force as an excuse.i.e slap ok but trying to say hitting with a baseball bat isn't so unreasonable force and no need to change the law.as an aside my grandad was mistreated as a boy,when my father and his brothers or sisters needed a smack,nana would send em to their dad who would get a strap and hit the bench or chair tell the kid to rub their hand for redness.he didn't belt them but if he was away then nana got the wooden spoon to em.family is not harmed or mentally unstable either all have brains.

[MisterD]

If this bill protects just one child from getting wolloped with a piece of wood, or punishes a parent for doing so then the bill has worked.

Then why, oh why, has an eminently sensible amendment like Chester Burrows' that defines reasonable force (I think the wording was a trifling and transitory application by an open hand), which was surely the most sensible of all options been rejected out of hand by the sisterhood?

For SB the answer is she can't help but interfere in everyone else life...

For HC the answer is she's still chasing that fuckin UN job.

[MisterD]

Where did you ever get the idea that the proponents of the bill and their suporters belive that kids should never be smacked??

Sue Bradford, every time she appears on broadcast media.

[Biff]

Then why, oh why, has an eminently sensible amendment like Chester Burrows' that defines reasonable force (I think the wording was a trifling and transitory application by an open hand), which was surely the most sensible of all options been rejected out of hand by the sisterhood?

My understanding is because it would have proven neigh on impossible to quantify exactly what reasonable force was. And that sounds like a fair cop out, sorry justification to me.

[spudchucka]

Thoughts?

Most cops are parents as well, they know the difference between discipline and assault.

[MisterD]

And that sounds like a fair cop out, sorry justification to me.

Absolutely, another hypocrisy from Sue Bradford. The politicians elected to do the difficult stuff of law making can't or don't want to define reasonable force for their own bollocks idealistic position but they're happy to give that responsibility to individual coppers to make on the fly.:nono:

[Grahameeboy]

Absolutely, another hypocrisy from Sue Bradford. The politicians elected to do the difficult stuff of law making can't or don't want to define reasonable force for their own bollocks idealistic position but they're happy to give that responsibility to individual coppers to make on the fly.:nono:

Hum......these are the ideal functions of the Police

The idea of police role, function, purpose, or mission in society requires us to think beyond the technical and operational aspects of police work, and consider, if you will, the philosophy of policing, and/or more generally, the place of legitimate authority in society, as well as a number of larger issues which may seem like only of academic interest. However, such insights have important value. Glaeser (2000), for example, makes the case that policing is essentially a spatial practice (control of space), thus fulfilling the first of Max Weber's (1930) operational characteristics of a state: territoriality, legitimacy, and monopolization on the use of force. Policing is also one of those few lines of work, like teaching and medicine, which have intimate connections with social life, social progress, and social change. Too narrow a view of the police role is bad, and care must also be taken to avoid too broad a view. Scholars therefore, sometimes use the words "role" and "function" interchangeably. Let's begin with an ideal set of police functions which were identified by Goldstein (1977) a long time ago:

To prevent and control conduct widely recognized as threatening to life and property

To aid individuals who are in danger of physical harm, such as the victims of violent attack

To facilitate the movement of people and vehicles

To assist those who cannot care for themselves, the intoxicated, the addicted, the mentally ill, the physically disables, the old, and the young

To resolve conflict, whether it be between individuals, groups or individuals, or individuals and their government

To identify problems that have the potential for becoming more serious problems

To create and maintain a feeling of security in communities

Surely only hands on Policing can determine what is reasonable and what isn't. How can the Govt define that?

I know there is the danger that the cop may think that reasonable force has been used and is wrong but presumably the Police make a note, and keep and eye on the situation..............hard one for the Police, however, the public is not stupid and if there is a media outcry, they will realise that the Police are not the ones to attack.

I am sure at times the Police feel let down by the current Law when an abusive parent does not get convicted so at least now they have a better chance of get a reward for their time.

[ynot slow]

and an ex cop was saying that sue bradford was arrested by them sometime ago,he said the bitch spat at him 3 times whilst being arrested.i rest my case on her intelligence.shit have you seen her if she said don't do it, would you do it if you were a kid,the face would scare kids shitless

[MisterD]

Hum......these are the ideal functions of the Police

[snip]

Surely only hands on Policing can determine what is reasonable and what isn't. How can the Govt define that?


Oh come on, cops can't even exercise judgement on speeding tickets without catching it in the neck from Joe Public (or KB'er).

It is the job of society's elected representatives to define what society thinks is reasonable behaviour. That is what law making is all about - it's their fucking job!

Strange how in Helen's world the cops have gone from being the devil incarnate rapists-in-waiting to the solution to all her problems in the space of a few weeks.

[MSTRS]

Oh come on, cops can't even exercise judgement on speeding tickets without catching it in the neck from Joe Public (or KB'er).

It is the job of society's elected representatives to define what society thinks is reasonable behaviour. That is what law making is all about - it's their fucking job!

Strange how in Helen's world the cops have gone from being the devil incarnate rapists-in-waiting to the solution to all her problems in the space of a few weeks.

How right you are...it would seem to be parliament's prime motive to ensure that there are enough grey areas in our laws so that lawyers are kept rich 'interpreting those laws - and nothing has changed with this bill. It is the cop's job to uphold the laws as they are written.

[Biff]

to give that responsibility to individual coppers to make on the fly.:nono:

I'd imagine a cop may very well make decision to report any alleged assault, then I'd also imagine the prosecution service would consider all mitigating factors before deciding whether there was indeed a case to answer. Then theres the courts...

Cops are indeed empowered to make decisions on the fly over a wide range of issues, and I (one the whole, although they're only human) welcome them having that power, providing there is due process at a more senior/legal level.

The bottom line is something has to be done. New Zealand has a horrific track record of child abuse the worst in the OECD, or near enough?, I can't be arsed to Google).

This is a start, let's give it a chance. For the little uns sake.

[Clockwork]

I may be mistaken but I believe that there is no independent "Prosecution Service" in NZ, it's ALL done by the Police.

[Grahameeboy]

I may be mistaken but I believe that there is no independent "Prosecution Service" in NZ, its ALL done by the Police.

I am pretty certain this is no different in say the UK, however, the Prosecutors in NZ are Lawyers who presumably are bound to act with the guidelines of the Law Society so I would say pretty much independent.

[Grahameeboy]

I'd imagine a cop may very well make decision to report any alleged assault, then I'd also imagine the prosecution service would consider all mitigating factors before deciding whether there was indeed a case to answer. Then theres the courts...

Cops are indeed empowered to make decisions on the fly over a wide range of issues, and I (one the whole, although they're only human) welcome them having that power, providing there is due process at a more senior/legal level.

The bottom line is something has to be done. New Zealand has a horrific track record of child abuse the worst in the OECD, or near enough?, I can't be arsed to Google).

This is a start, let's give it a chance. For the little uns sake.

Good one Biff...sorry guys but I really cannot understand the attitude.....in fact you guys spend more words complaining about Ms Bradford.......

This is a lovely Country but full of negative attitudes....so much for whinging POMs'........

The Law is the Law. If we had what you guys want there would be arnachy.

The Police cannot deal with speed..............you break the law the Police do you whether you think it is fair or not....you break it, Handy Mandy aint gonna wipe away your tears.

[Skyryder]

I may be mistaken but I believe that there is no independent "Prosecution Service" in NZ, it's ALL done by the Police.

You can instigate a private prosecution. Expensive and only for the wealthy.


Skyryrder

[Clockwork]

I am pretty certain this is no different in say the UK, however, the Prosecutors in NZ are Lawyers who presumably are bound to act with the guidelines of the Law Society so I would say pretty much independent.

As I understand it in the UK, prosecutions are initiated by the "Crown Prosecution Service" which is a legal body completely independent of the Police somewhat like the American "DA". And it is they who decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute or if it is in the public interest to do so. In NZ Crown Prosecutions are initiated by the Police.

This is why the Police got some much arseholes when they decided not to prosecute all those Politicians over recent years.

[Skyryder]

As I understand it in the UK, prosecutions are initiated by the "Crown Prosecution Service" which is a legal body completely independent of the Police somewhat like the American "DA". And it is they who decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute or if it is in the public interest to do so. In NZ Crown Prosecutions are initiated by the Police.

This is why the Police got some much arseholes when they decided not to prosecute all those Politicians over recent years.

I think the Police have to go through the Crown Law Office. The Itallics are mine.


The Crown Law Office provides legal advice and representation services to the government in matters affecting the executive government, particularly in the areas of criminal, public and administrative law. The services provided include matters covering judicial review of government actions, constitutional questions including Treaty of Waitangi issues, the enforcement of criminal law, and protection of the revenue. The Office administers the prosecution process in the criminal justice system, in particular, trials on indictment before juries.

The Office has two primary purposes in providing these services:

* to ensure that the operations and responsibilities of the executive government are conducted lawfully, and
* to ensure that the government is not prevented, through legal process, from lawfully implementing its chosen policies and discharging its governmental responsibilities.


Skyryder

[Phurrball]

NZ has crown prosecutors in addition to the police.

They usually deal with the 'higher end' more complex cases, although the range of what the police prosecute varies in different parts of the country. As I understand it, many Police prosecutors are lawyers.

Various law firms have the crown prosecution warrant up and down the country, with a crown solicitor for the given region - I did a stint clerking for one in Dunedin.

Both the Police and Crown lawyers have discretion WRT whether to lay a charge.

All lawyers are officers of the court (Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of NZ), and have duties to the court in addition to those to their client (the accused or the crown) eg no misleading the court, if a lawyer has knowledge of an imminent crime, they have a duty to pass this on (to the police) etc.

Clear as mud??

PS - cheers Skyrider - you must be a better typist than I am...(not hard)

[Usarka]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10472554


A lobby group opposing the law banning the smacking of children says a school reported a Wellington mother to Child, Youth and Family Services (CYF) for smacking her child on the hand.

In a second incident two months later, three police officers arrived at he family's home, acting on a complaint from a neighbour.
The mother had smacked her child on the backside with the palm of her hand during an incident around the trampoline in the backyard.
"The police officers were very kind, but warned me of a possible arrest if this sort of thing happened again.

[Big Dan]

10 chars 10 chars

[skidMark]

I thought it already was law?

If not then why are people going to court etc for giving thier kids a little clip on the ear as i have seen in threads on here?

[Big Dan]

Any Lawyers out there

Could this poll have any legal binding thing mean would we be able to present this as part of the petition

I know there is another thread about this but i wanted to do a poll feel free to merge

[Big Dan]

I thought it already was law?

If not then why are people going to court etc for giving thier kids a little clip on the ear as i have seen in threads on here?

mark read or listen to the news

[skidMark]

mark read or listen to the news


Don't watch news, it's all depressing stuff, why watch something thats more bad than good?

Anyways, do enlighten me.

[Big Dan]

Don't watch news, it's all depressing stuff, why watch something thats more bad than good?

Anyways, do enlighten me.

don't have time to enlighten the un-enlightenable

[98tls]

No way,in fact they should pass a law saying a kick up the arse is compulsory for young fellas that fuck up,never did the rest of us any harm and we learnt something:rolleyes:go figure.

[Mully]

Any Lawyers out there

Could this poll have any legal binding thing mean would we be able to present this as part of the petition


Well, bush lawyer.

No, cannot be part of the referendum - the petition must have name and address included (part of today's drama, with repeats)

[Big Dan]

No way,in fact they should pass a law saying a kick up the arse is compulsory for young fellas that fuck up,never did the rest of us any harm and we learnt something:rolleyes:go figure.

yeah i had the wooden spoon a few times till i hid it (big mistake) dad then started to kettle cord

Now that hurts


Well, bush lawyer.

No, cannot be part of the referendum - the petition must have name and address included (part of today's drama, with repeats)

Worth a try i guess thought i'd ask the lawyers out there anyway

[98tls]

yeah i had the wooden spoon a few times till i hid it (big mistake) dad then started to kettle cord

Now that hurts



Worth a try i guess thought i'd ask the lawyers out there anyway Went to boarding school at 8 and quickly learnt that fucking up was quickly followed by a cane round your arse,yes it hurt for a few minutes and no i didnt do that again,simple.The dipshits that are running this country are going to breed generations of kids with no boundries,lucky NZ.

[Stirts]

OH FFS the damage has already been done!!! The bastard of the whole thing now is, kids have already been edumacated in the smacking laws at school, hell even at Creche level!!!! NEWS FLASH....KIDS ARE NOT STOOPID!!!

You tap a child on the hand for being a little shit "testing the boundaries" and they go to school/kindie/creche sayin "my mummy/daddy smacked me last nite"

Now being a parent, bringing up your child, the way YOU see fit, has been taken out of your hands to a certain extent!!!!

Do kids come with a user manual when you pop that farker out of you, providing guidence on how YOU should bring up YOUR child?

wait for it.....it will come courtesy of the NZ govt :Pokey:

twitter and bisted aunty

[fridayflash]

in many ways its a human rights issue,removing the right to discipline ones own child in the only way little humans understand is a crime against the laws of nature.therefore a breach of a parents basic rights.
the entire animal kingdom use a marshal or physical form of discipline to create barriers between good and bad behavior,and us humans are no exception. ive got four kiddies of my own ,all of which are well mannered,well behaved and best of all theyre happy. i was firm with them and found that after the age of say..four or five it was very rare to need to smack or physicaly intervene,as they always knew what was or was not acceptable.
as you can imagine im totally pissed off at that ultra lefty bleeding heart
liberal slag for putting that bill forward,and a so-called labour government for not insisting on binding public referendum in such serious matters.
phew!! lol

[Big Dan]

what happened to my poll?