Nigel Latta parenting show TV1 tonight.

[Badjelly]

One thing struck me about the Nigel Latta show this week, which I must admit I didn't pay very close attention to. Having talked fondly about the good old days of caning and stressed the important of punishment as one of the tools that parents need (and I agree 100% with this), he then went on to talk about various techniques including the microwave timer, the time-out and the ladder of doom (you'd have to have watched it to understand that one). But he never talked about smacking the little buggers when they're naughty. So where does he stand on physical punishment? Is he being just a teensy bit PC about this?

[Winston001]

Yes it is, if it's hitting for correction. The only other time you can be excused for "assaulting" your children is if it is part of normal parental duties such as forcibly cleaning or phisically restraining them.

Fair enough. Give us the details of the prosecutions of parents who administered a corrective smack. The media have been all over this for the last couple of years so there should be plenty of cases.......if you are right......

[Winston001]

One thing struck me about the Nigel Latta show this week, which I must admit I didn't pay very close attention to. Having talked fondly about the good old days of caning and stressed the important of punishment as one of the tools that parents need (and I agree 100% with this), he then went on to talk about various techniques including the microwave timer, the time-out and the ladder of doom (you'd have to have watched it to understand that one). But he never talked about smacking the little buggers when they're naughty. So where does he stand on physical punishment? Is he being just a teensy bit PC about this?

Had to laugh. What he said comes straight out of the positive parenting courses. In other words, he's pretending to be un-PC but in fact is reinforcing current ideas.

[Badjelly]

...So where does he stand on physical punishment?...

Isn't the Internet wonderful? From a newspaper article

...NZ clinical psychologist, author of parenting books and father of two Nigel Latta, is torn on the smacking issue, but told the Herald Sun: "It does kids no harm at all and, personally, we've smacked our kids. We don't any more, of course (due to the ban in NZ). We discovered with my eldest son that it just made things worse. I have no strong feelings about smacking one way or the other. It works on some kids, on others it doesn't.

That's close to my opinion.

[Winston001]

Define 'light smack'...nobody can (or will).

Easy - but I don't need to. There is no physical description of assault or murder in the Crimes Act either but we know it when we see it.

A sharp smack on a baby would be abuse. On a 4yr old's bottom, appropriate. On a 12yr old a waste of time.

But what's frustrating is the complete misunderstanding of S 59. The loopholes in the previous version allowed some abusive parents to escape, and discouraged the police from prosecuting.

So the loopholes were closed. 99.9% of parents should be pleased. Hell its about protecting kids.

We can, however, see a decline in youth behaviour/responsibilty that has accelerated since corporal punishment was abandoned..along with many more violent assaults, use of vehicles as weapons - that sort of thing. Too simplistic to draw that inference? Perhaps. Yet no denying there is every chance the two are connected.

I'm sure there is research on this but I'd hazzard a guess youth have been a growing problem since the industrial revolution. Once we moved away from villages to cities, we provided a fertile environment for youth culture to develop.

[The Stranger:Me]

Fair enough. Give us the details of the prosecutions of parents who administered a corrective smack. The media have been all over this for the last couple of years so there should be plenty of cases.......if you are right......

Why does that matter to the topics at hand or the referendum question?

[The Stranger:Me]

But what's frustrating is the complete misunderstanding of S 59. The loopholes in the previous version allowed some abusive parents to escape, and discouraged the police from prosecuting.

I know I asked this before, but is the govt proposing a return to the previous version?

[Clockwork]

Fair enough. Give us the details of the prosecutions of parents who administered a corrective smack. The media have been all over this for the last couple of years so there should be plenty of cases.......if you are right......

Give me a break! I'm not trawling through the News archives in an attempt to proove/disproove an irrelevant point. You made a statement about what is allowed by law, I challenged it. I've read that part of the act, and I've simply stated my interpretation. Whether or not a jury would convict, I don't know. I expect a lot would depend upon if the Judge advised them during the summing up (as in a recent case) that they must apply the law regardeless of whether they agreed with it or not (paraphrased, I admit).

Quite simply the law as it stands at the moment DOES allow conviction, even for a light smack if given for "corrective" purposes and certianly would permit the prosecution of such cases.

Personally I don't think ANY parent should be subject to the criminal justice program for such an action. End of story.

[Winston001]

Why does that matter to the topics at hand or the referendum question?

Because the hysteria behind the referendum is based on the canard that good average kiwi parents are being prosecuted for smacking their children. So lets see the evidence.

I know I asked this before, but is the govt proposing a return to the previous version?

No. This is a citizens initiated referendum, not a political initiative.

[Clockwork]

But what's frustrating is the complete misunderstanding of S 59. The loopholes in the previous version allowed some abusive parents to escape, and discouraged the police from prosecuting.

Who escaped prosecution??? As I recall and have stated previously, they were aquitted by a jury of their peers.

[The Stranger:Me]

Because the hysteria behind the referendum is based on the canard that good average kiwi parents are being prosecuted for smacking their children. So lets see the evidence.

Surely this is a matter you should take up with those who initialted the referendum.

No. This is a citizens initiated referendum, not a political initiative.

Right, so why the stress over what once was?

[MSTRS:Me]

Because the hysteria behind the referendum is based on the canard that good average kiwi parents are being prosecuted for smacking their children. So lets see the evidence.

Not necessarily...
The problem (for 82% of the population, according to polls) is that good average kiwi parents can be prosecuted for smacking their children.

[Grahameeboy]

The old misconception again and again - kids aren't adults. End of story. They are not miniature adults and do not have the same cognitive powers of reason, experience with which to judge consequences etc. Stop comparing how we treat adults and children as if it should be identical.

To what degree though?

Have you seen how adults are? I treat Nats like a person..simple as that...it works.

Naughty is naughty...same response.

[Grahameeboy]

Not necessarily...
The problem (for 82% of the population, according to polls) is that good average kiwi parents can be prosecuted for smacking their children.

So what % of average Kiwi parents can be prosecuted?

[MisterD]

Because the hysteria behind the referendum is based on the canard that good average kiwi parents are being prosecuted for smacking their children. So lets see the evidence.

Criminalised not prosecuted...say I walk into my local dairy, pick up a packet of biscuits and leave without paying or being seen...have I broken the law? Yes. Have I been prosecuted? No.

The point is, that if I give my boy a clip around the arse in Pak'n'save because he keeps taking biscuits off the shelf, then if some interfering busybody so decides I could get home to find the CYFS stormtroopers waiting for me...that is an absolutely fucking intolerable state of affairs and that is why I've already voted no.