Get ready to hit your kids...

[Winston001]

There never was any legitimate defence for abuse, Its an illegal act.

No Mets, sadly you are mistaken. The case I can remember is a woman in Oamaru who disciplined her daughter with a horse-crop. The jury decided that was reasonable discipline.

The previous section 59 defence has been successfully raised in cases where parents has been prosecuted for hitting their child with a bamboo stick, hitting their child with a belt, hitting their child with a hosepipe, hitting their child with a piece of wood and chaining their child in metal chains to prevent them leaving the house. These successful acquittals have all occurred in jury trials, where the jury has found that such actions have been reasonable, and therefore lawful, means of domestic discipline towards children.

That is the reality. That's what the law previously allowed.

17 European countries now restrict physical punishment like NZ does, its not a new idea.

[Headbanger]

No Mets, sadly you are mistaken. The case I can remember is a woman in Oamaru who disciplined her daughter with a horse-crop. The jury decided that was reasonable discipline.

If its the same event I heard her talk for a couple hours about it on the radio, I don't remember it being a female child but it was definilty a riding crop.

Anyway, She talked at length about the behaviour and abuse from the child that lead to her lashing at her with the riding crop, It was a sad tale from both sides, And after hearing the details I support the jury that made the judgement. Until then i was all high and mighty about it...but there you go.

Anyhow, They blew it soon after by hitting the child again and then insisting they had the right under the law, at which time I believe further action was taken.

The previous section 59 defence has been successfully raised in cases where parents has been prosecuted for hitting their child with a bamboo stick, hitting their child with a belt, hitting their child with a hosepipe, hitting their child with a piece of wood and chaining their child in metal chains to prevent them leaving the house. These successful acquittals have all occurred in jury trials, where the jury has found that such actions have been reasonable, and therefore lawful, means of domestic discipline towards children.

I'd have to see more details about those cases, Sure sounds rough, But I'd imagine there was some pretty heavy circumstances behind them.

It does remind me that my oldboy whipped me with his belt, And god damn I deserved, Thanks Dad.

[Winston001]

Because they're not being fucking enforced!!

Enacting more bloody laws we're not going to make work is a type of blindness I just can't understand.

Repression of emotion can lead to inner conflicts so you need to let it out - don't hold back. We're here for you

Righto, just how do we enforce these laws when a fair few members of society don't think the rules apply to them? Heaps more police, helicoptors, face recognition technology on the roads, ID chips......???

[Headbanger]

Repression of emotion can lead to inner conflicts so you need to let it out - don't hold back. We're here for you

Righto, just how do we enforce these laws when a fair few members of society don't think the rules apply to them? Heaps more police, helicoptors, face recognition technology on the roads, ID chips......???

They are already known to police, nearly everyone that makes the news for there crimes has had a long and illustrias carrerr in crime for many years, Society tolerates them until they perform a crime so heinous they are locked up for good.

The answer is simple, Redraw the line on what we will tolerate.

Break into a house, Month in jail

Do it again, year in jail.

Three times?.....Shoot em.

[Ixion]

No Mets, sadly you are mistaken. The case I can remember is a woman in Oamaru who disciplined her daughter with a horse-crop. The jury decided that was reasonable discipline.

The previous section 59 defence has been successfully raised in cases where parents has been prosecuted for hitting their child with a bamboo stick, hitting their child with a belt, hitting their child with a hosepipe, hitting their child with a piece of wood and chaining their child in metal chains to prevent them leaving the house. These successful acquittals have all occurred in jury trials, where the jury has found that such actions have been reasonable, and therefore lawful, means of domestic discipline towards children.

That is the reality. That's what the law previously allowed.

17 European countries now restrict physical punishment like NZ does, its not a new idea.

But that is the very essence of the jury. It is a (roughly) representative cross section of society. And, in each of those cases, the jury felt that what was done was "reasonable".

Now, the law uses 'reasonable" in many places.Police must have "reasonbale" grounds etc. In mosts cases it falls to a jury to declare what is "reasonable", and what is not. And personally I can't think of a better way of getting an opinion on it.

In each case the jury heard all the facts. I don't know all the facts. But 12 people, who had no axe to grind, did, and felt that the actions were reasonable. (And we may be fairly sure that the prosecution would have challenged any fundamentalist Christians or convicted bashers on the jury).

Sue Bradford did not think the actions were reasonable. So she had the law changed, to force her definition of "reasonable" on us all. In case any more juries disagreed with her. Maybe she knew what the jury did, maybe not. But the whole of our judicial system is based on "reasonable" being "reasonable", not to one self appointed governmental zealot, but to society at large. Joe Q Public, that deep and incisive thinker. The man on the Porirua omnibus. The "reasonable man".

If it comes to a choice between a jury defining what is "reasonable" and having it defined by Sue Bradford (or any other politician) I'll take the jury.

It's not a perfect system. But in 1000 odd years, no-one has come up with a better one

[awayatc]

Only Sue Braedbox would argue with that......

[Patrick]

....However they fell it is pefectly acceptable to lock their kids in a cupboard, no light. For long periods of time....

The was a little Asian girl on the North Shore recently who this happened to. It wasn't called time out... what did they call that?????

Oh yeah... Kidnapping, punishable by 14 years imprisonment....

Smacked bum or kidnapping. Hmmmm....

Because they're not being fucking enforced!!

Have you been into the Police Cells lately? Any cell block for that matter and seen what customers come through for???

Check out a day at the courts.

"Not being enforced" my arse....

[Skyryder]

If it comes to a choice between a jury defining what is "reasonable" and having it defined by Sue Bradford (or any other politician) I'll take the jury.

It's not a perfect system. But in 1000 odd years, no-one has come up with a better one

When society allows injury of any kind especialy to a child for whatever reason then in my opinion it has lost it's right to determine what is, or is not reasonble, in respect of child discipline.


Skyryder

[Ocean1]

"Not being enforced" my arse....

I stand corrected.

Have you been into the Police Cells lately? Any cell block for that matter and seen what customers come through for???

Check out a day at the courts.

They're not being sucessfully enforced.

[awayatc]

Check out a day at the courts.

"Not being enforced" my arse....

So We need more police cells/jails.....?

I hear there is one planned in the central south island,
one near wellington,
And they are putting a wall around South auckland.....

[RDJ]

And they are putting a wall around South auckland.....

John Carpenter's "Escape From Mangere" - Snake Plissken where are you...

[Clockwork]

I stand corrected.



They're not being sucessfully enforced.

I'd suggest that they are being enforced but the punishment is no deterent.

Pehaps we should try flogging.

[MSTRS:Me]

When society allows injury of any kind especialy to a child for whatever reason then in my opinion it has lost it's right to determine what is, or is not reasonble, in respect of child discipline.


Skyryder

I've said it before. A government is not there to defy the wishes of the people. That's the problem with lefty/green zealots...

[Winston001]

But that is the very essence of the jury. It is a (roughly) representative cross section of society. And, in each of those cases, the jury felt that what was done was "reasonable".

In each case the jury heard all the facts. I don't know all the facts. But 12 people, who had no axe to grind, did, and felt that the actions were reasonable.

But the whole of our judicial system is based on "reasonable" being "reasonable", not to one self appointed governmental zealot, but to society at large. Joe Q Public, that deep and incisive thinker. The man on the Porirua omnibus. The "reasonable man".

It's not a perfect system. But in 1000 odd years, no-one has come up with a better one

Great post Ix. If we understand the reasonable man on the Porirua unit (as the NZ version goes ) as the average juror, then that man has to apply the law as explained to him by the judge.

So if the law is vague or leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt, then the jury can be persuaded to vote "not guilty".

Here is the text of the previous Section 59:


"59. Domestic discipline-

(1) Every parent of a child and, ....., every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.


So, what you and I consider is reasonable isn't what an offender parent might consider reasonable. And if - as used to happen, the defence persuades the jury that they have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, then even extreme punishments can be accepted in the circumstances of that family.

The problem with the law was that it was too subjective and juries discharged parents because of doubt as to what the law meant.


Here is the new Section 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).
• 
  
• (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.

As we can see it is much more detailed and much tighter. It still uses the word "reasonable" but defines the limits on where and how force can be used.

Certainly there will still be defended cases and the new law needs to be interpreted in practise but children now have better protection. You'll note the word smacking has never appeared anywhere in the law - that is a pure emotive media beat-up.

[Winston001]

So why are the police prosecuting the Christchurch man for flicking has kids ear?
Pity judges cannot fine the police for wasting the courts time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10528277

Its pretty simple to see there is a real case here. The whole purpose of a depositions hearing is to toss out cases which won't go anywhere, to dismiss hopeless charges instead of cluttering up jury trials.

If this guy is such a misunderstood angel, then he'd have had the charges easily dismissed at deps. Funnily enough, that doesn't seem to have happened.....