Anti-smacking law amended

[Flatcap]

There was a Child Abuse case a few months ago when the Mother got out of it because she claimed 'reasonable force' and the current Law worked in her favour.

.

As I understood that case the law was fine but the jury were idiots.

[Grahameeboy]

add'l.....

poor case law before us has not helped. Smart-ass defence lawyers get people off all sorts of charges on bollocks issues regardless of the fact they were overwhelmingly guilty. I am just an angry man and need to vent my anger.... who wants a spanking!!!!!!!!!

Well I am over 16 so I will take the spanking please..............

[Toaster]

And that is why the lawyers hand pick the jury...... and challenge out anyone who looks like they will say the magic 'guilty' word. I wont say anymore I am too grumpy.

[Toaster]

Well I am over 16 so I will take the spanking please..............

Dude, you live in "Gayport"... I am starting to worry about you fella!

[Grahameeboy]

As I understood that case the law was fine but the jury were idiots.

Maybe so, I do not know but maybe the Law did not help.....but the Draft proposals are a better detterent because those who abuse their kids may think twice and will have to be more careful and will in the end trip up.....

[Grahameeboy]

Dude, you live in "Gayport"... I am starting to worry about you fella!

Thanks for your concern Mr T................it can be appreciated...

[Flatcap]

Maybe so, I do not know but maybe the Law did not help.....but the Draft proposals are a better detterent because those who abuse their kids may think twice and will have to be more careful and will in the end trip up.....

Aaah - but this is the error in the logic. Those who abuse their children do not think at all. The only thought they will have is how to best hide it after the act.

[Grahameeboy]

Aaah - but this is the error in the logic. Those who abuse their children do not think at all. The only thought they will have is how to best hide it after the act.

Possible true because they know it is hard to get done for it but they might, and I accept it is a big might, think twice with the Draft proposals........

Don't get me wrong I am not saying it will work cause that is not possible, all I am advocating is that the Govt is trying....and that is what most of us do each day............

[Mr. Peanut]

It's got a 1.6km range!

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/List...97&permanent=0

[Biff]

Kids need this Law even if you don't.

And there lies the most common sense statement I've heard relating to this bill so far.

I find is incomprehensible that people are/were anti this bill. It's not about you, the parents, it's about providing much needed additional protection (by way of a deterent) for the wee ones. I think it's pure selfishness to be against this bill, a bill which was only designed to remove the get out of jail free card some parents hide behind after whooping kids.

Wrap up the anti-bill agruements as much as you like, but it sickens me to hear people bleating on about parents having the right to beat their kids, and whining about it being bill affecting civil liberties.

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.

[Squeak the Rat]

I find is incomprehensible that people are/were anti this bill. It's not about you, the parents, it's about providing much needed additional protection (by way of a deterent) for the wee ones. I think it's pure selfishness to be against this bill, a bill which was only designed to remove the get out of jail free card some parents hide behind after whooping kids.

The intent of the bill makers may be as you say. But the reality is that it's now illegal for parents to smack their kids. Ergo parents that smack their kids (90% of parents) are criminals and are subject to the whim of a policeman if they are caught.

I seriously challenge any proponent of this bill, those who believe kids should never be smacked, to list a practical step by step guide for my brother to manage his rebellious 5 year old son without smacking.

He often breaks things, goes walkabout, plays on the road, hits his sister, eats stuff from the fridge, plays with matches etc etc.

They tried and used all the normal tools, time out, reasoning (at the time and afterwards), rewarding, even threatening. Sometimes these work, but more often he just keeps pushing when you tell him to stop. The only thing that is gauranteed to stop his bad behaviour after all else fails is a smack. And open handed smack to the bottom - not a clip around the head or jug cord or anything else.

So please tell me what alternative method they should use so that I can stop my family from breaking the law..........

[Mr. Peanut]

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.

The current system "protects" children against this sort of thing. I've seen the wonder of the system for myself.

Imagine a game of Chinese whispers spread over 6 different government departments and 3 years.

Now make 90% of parents criminals and repeat

[Biff]

The intent of the bill makers may be as you say. But the reality is that it's now illegal for parents to smack their kids.

Good. And with the ammendment made to the bill police can now follow a clear steer from the powers that be to only charge the asailant when it's in the public interest and when unreasonable force has been used.

Let common sense prevail.

And yes, I will continue to slap (not beat or hit with an inamimate object or clenched fist) my kids as and when I believe they deserve it.

[Skyryder]

The intent of the bill makers may be as you say. But the reality is that it's now illegal for parents to smack their kids. Ergo parents that smack their kids (90% of parents) are criminals and are subject to the whim of a policeman if they are caught.

I seriously challenge any proponent of this bill, those who believe kids should never be smacked, to list a practical step by step guide for my brother to manage his rebellious 5 year old son without smacking.

Where did you ever get the idea that the proponents of the bill and their suporters belive that kids should never be smacked?? Ahhrrrr yes the Christian Right...........those that have a political agenda and are prepared to use children as a political tool against Labour. Below is the proposed change to section 59 . I have been unable to find section (4 ammendment) The proposal states very clearly where (smacking) can be used.

Proposed replacement o f
sec t i on 59
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).

Seems to me your brother's child could be smacked under (c)

Skyryder

[ynot slow]

i was under the impression that it was section59 part which was to be ammended so it took away the justification of what was/is reasonable force as an excuse.i.e slap ok but trying to say hitting with a baseball bat isn't so unreasonable force and no need to change the law.as an aside my grandad was mistreated as a boy,when my father and his brothers or sisters needed a smack,nana would send em to their dad who would get a strap and hit the bench or chair tell the kid to rub their hand for redness.he didn't belt them but if he was away then nana got the wooden spoon to em.family is not harmed or mentally unstable either all have brains.