Anti-smacking law amended

[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.

[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.

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:Me]

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.

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.