Child beaters, round two

[MSTRS:Me]

Despite the cost, this referendum was promised and it's good to see that National is delivering on their promise. After all, we know from bitter experience that pre-election promises are normally vote-buying throw-aways...
Anyway, the people of this country have shown overwhelmingly in polls that the way the law is now, is not the way they want it. Perhaps this time the pollies will actually listen, and rewrite the legislation to provide the clarity that is and has been asked for.
Stop with the 'reasonable force' and 'light and inconsequential' crap...JUST CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES A SMACK AND WHERE IT CAN BE APPLIED.
Oh - and remove that bullshit about 'not for the purposes of correction'. If a child is out of line, a smack is just as relevant after the fact as going in...

[MisterD]

It’s semantics to suggest that the Nats did not have an election policy on this.

What would you lefties have said if he'd answered the question as "I dunno...". Was anything to do with the anti-smacking legislation in the National manifesto? I don't think so.

[Skyryder]

What would you lefties have said if he'd answered the question as "I dunno...". Was anything to do with the anti-smacking legislation in the National manifesto? I don't think so.

Key has led those that oppose the 'anti smacking' law to believe that he would change this if he got into Government.

While I agree this was not the official party policy
The National Party will consider changing the anti-smacking laws if New Zealanders demand changes in a referendum, leader John Key says.

his turn around on this is no less consistant on this as the Nationals tax policy which was part of National's manefesto.


This is one of the few areas that I agree with Key, but again he has led New Zealanders astray and broken his word. But then what else is new with Key.


Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

Key has led those that oppose the 'anti smacking' law to believe that he would change this if he got into Government.

While I agree this was not the official party policy
The National Party will consider changing the anti-smacking laws if New Zealanders demand changes in a referendum, leader John Key says.

his turn around on this is no less consistant on this as the Nationals tax policy which was part of National's manefesto.


This is one of the few areas that I agree with Key, but again he has led New Zealanders astray and broken his word. But then what else is new with Key.


Skyryder

Come on. Show us the politician that never went back on a promise. Ever.
There is no such animal.
And besides, what Key said about 'it is working so will leave it alone' is just words. Wait till the referendum results come in and what his government does at that time will be what counts.

[Morcs]

I really hope the anti smacking bill gets revoked.

Then I can beat my sister. she needs it.

And then I can beat up kids in the street. yay!

[Skyryder]

Come on. Show us the politician that never went back on a promise. Ever.
There is no such animal.
And besides, what Key said about 'it is working so will leave it alone' is just words. Wait till the referendum results come in and what his government does at that time will be what counts.

He will probably change his mind......again. FlaKey as per usual.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

Despite the cost, this referendum was promised and it's good to see that National is delivering on their promise. After all, we know from bitter experience that pre-election promises are normally vote-buying throw-aways...
Anyway, the people of this country have shown overwhelmingly in polls that the way the law is now, is not the way they want it. Perhaps this time the pollies will actually listen, and rewrite the legislation to provide the clarity that is and has been asked for.
Stop with the 'reasonable force' and 'light and inconsequential' crap...JUST CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES A SMACK AND WHERE IT CAN BE APPLIED.
Oh - and remove that bullshit about 'not for the purposes of correction'. If a child is out of line, a smack is just as relevant after the fact as going in...

You are a decent bloke and the frustration you express is at the core of this argument. Unfortunately you've been misled.

There is no statutory law in NZ which states a smack is unlawful. None. So its pointless to define a word which doesn't exist in any statute. Just as there is no definition of speed, dangerous, etc.

In the past, some parents got away with serious assaults because they convinced a jury that what they did was reasonable in their particular circumstances. Juries can be easily confused - as we know from the Bain case - and when they are told they must give the parent a reasonable doubt = not guilty.

The changed Section 59 simply tightened up the defence an abusive parent could try to argue.

[jono035]

You are a decent bloke and the frustration you express is at the core of this argument. Unfortunately you've been misled.

There is no statutory law in NZ which states a smack is unlawful. None. So its pointless to define a word which doesn't exist in any statute. Just as there is no definition of speed, dangerous, etc.

In the past, some parents got away with serious assaults because they convinced a jury that what they did was reasonable in their particular circumstances. Juries can be easily confused - as we know from the Bain case - and when they are told they must give the parent a reasonable doubt = not guilty.

The changed Section 59 simply tightened up the defence an abusive parent could try to argue.

Agreed, but the justification for this was 'Even though the change makes physical contact for the means of correction illegal, we won't prosecute anyone that doesn't deserve it...'

Which basically means you can no longer do it without risking some busybody laying a complaint and exaggerating the situation to the point where you end up in court and as you said, juries get confused...

Just seems like it fixes one problem at the cost of possibly creating another.

The referendum is pretty pointless though with a question like that, but at least Sue Bradford is on the case now (she stated earlier that she is going to be focusing her attention on the citizen initiated referendum procedure...).

[MSTRS:Me]

You are a decent bloke and the frustration you express is at the core of this argument. Unfortunately you've been misled.

There is no statutory law in NZ which states a smack is unlawful. None. So its pointless to define a word which doesn't exist in any statute. Just as there is no definition of speed, dangerous, etc.

In the past, some parents got away with serious assaults because they convinced a jury that what they did was reasonable in their particular circumstances. Juries can be easily confused - as we know from the Bain case - and when they are told they must give the parent a reasonable doubt = not guilty.

The changed Section 59 simply tightened up the defence an abusive parent could try to argue.

To a degree you are right.

Section 59 states:

"(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."

The use of some form of physical contact generally implies a smack of some description. The bloke in ChCh recently was found guilty of assault for 'giving his kid a flick on the ear'. I couldn't say whether the effect was inconsequential or not, although I suspect that father thought so...but the jury did not. If the legislation stated that an openhanded smack on the (child's) hand or buttocks that left no lingering mark, then I suspect that the majority could accept that as good law.

[Skyryder]

To a degree you are right.

The use of some form of physical contact generally implies a smack of some description. The bloke in ChCh recently was found guilty of assault for 'giving his kid a flick on the ear'. I couldn't say whether the effect was inconsequential or not, although I suspect that father thought so...but the jury did not. If the legislation stated that an openhanded smack on the (child's) hand or buttocks that left no lingering mark, then I suspect that the majority could accept that as good law.

Whenever Mason is mentioned (bloke in Chch) the opponents of Bradford's bill always demean the seriouness of the offence by stating that he was only found guilty of flicking his son's ear. Mason was found guilty of assault by punching his four year old yes four year old son in the face.

But on the third count - which accused him of pulling the 4-year-old's ear and punching him in the face - the jury returned a guilty verdict.

from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10573340

At least there is one journo out there who makes sense

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10578843


Skyryder

[Kickaha]

If we can't smack then would an electric dog collar be ok?

[Genestho]

Via the Act website....

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today (May 9 '08) announced that he will introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007.

"My announcement coincides with yesterday's release of a poll that shows widespread support for the law to be altered," Mr Boscawen said.

"This poll, commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, surveyed the views of 1,000 everyday New Zealanders - 83 percent of whom felt the law should be changed, with a total 77 percent of respondents believing the law would not help reduce our child abuse rates.

"While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.
"The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.
"In an attempt to curb child abuse, this law has simply criminalised law-abiding parents and removed their freedom to decide how best to raise their children - something that ACT has consistently opposed."

[Skyryder]

Via the Act website....

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today (May 9 '08) announced that he will introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007.

"My announcement coincides with yesterday's release of a poll that shows widespread support for the law to be altered," Mr Boscawen said.

"This poll, commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, surveyed the views of 1,000 everyday New Zealanders - 83 percent of whom felt the law should be changed, with a total 77 percent of respondents believing the law would not help reduce our child abuse rates.

"While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.
"The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.
"In an attempt to curb child abuse, this law has simply criminalised law-abiding parents and removed their freedom to decide how best to raise their children - something that ACT has consistently opposed."

It's very clear and in black and white.

Current law.

Section 59 states:

"(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 –

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

There is nothing in the current act that needs changing.

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen is just jumping on the bandwagon trying to get himself noticed.

Skyryder

[Genestho]

It's very clear and in black and white.

Current law.

Section 59 states:

"(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 –

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

There is nothing in the current act that needs changing.

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen is just jumping on the bandwagon trying to get himself noticed.

Skyryder

SO what is the definition of reasonable force? When you relate it to the Crimes Act - Section 2 - Assault:

“Assault” means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.

The amendment says that no prosecution by the police needs to proceed if ‘the offence’ – that is, the use of force for the correction of children – is inconsequential. If the correction doesn’t correct the child and doesn’t change their behaviour, then you won’t be prosecuted, but if the correction does correct the child and does change their behaviour, as is intended by the correction, you will be prosecuted!

There is obviously an overwhelming reponse to this law for at LEAST these reasons, the definition of reasonable force is not clear, and not even the experts know, it is a drain on resources, failing to deal with the real issues.

FWIW I do think the referendum should be scrapped. And I won't be voting.

Is John any different to any other MP?

[Winston001]

Lets start from base. It is unlawful to assault another human being. Exceptions being - self defence, medical need, safety of others, police powers, customs and excise, immigration etc and......parental control.

So, there is a specific exception (Section 59 Crimes Act 1961) which gives a defence to a parent.

How about somebody suggests the best wording for S.59 which will protect children, still allow parents to "smack", but not excuse a parent whose smack sends a kid across the room.