Don't smack your kids...

[Little Miss Trouble]

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

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

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

[Mully]

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

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

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

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

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

[Winston001]

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

Yes.




Help the pollies out - define reasonable for us.

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

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

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


I'm interested in your forthcoming definition.

[Winston001]

There already was an "anti violent abuse law"

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

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

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

Apologies in advance but - utter rot.

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

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

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

[Scuba_Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

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

[Mully]

Help the pollies out - define reasonable for us.

I'm interested in your forthcoming definition.

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

Anyway, requoted below for your perusal.

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

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

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

[Winston001]

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

An honest mistake Steve but wrong.

Totally wrong.

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

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

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


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

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

[Winston001]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scuba_Steve]

An honest mistake Steve but wrong.

Totally wrong.

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

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

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

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

[JimO]

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

[EJT]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bikemad]

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

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

[PrincessBandit]

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

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

[Scuba_Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

and here is the big problem with the new law

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

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

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