Don't smack your kids...

[Banditbandit]

And here is the problem that we're going on about, because if you do that now you are a criminal no 2-ways about it any more, you cannot under any circumstances smack your kid under this new law. If they did bring in "child abuse" quotas as sarcastically (I assume) mentioned by FJRider there would be alot of unjust convictions to otherwise innocent parents like Genie & Mashman, so all we can do at this stage is hope like hell they never bring in said quotas as the Govt seems quite willing to ignore democracy & refuse to reverse the law as NZ voted.

Jeez .. can't you read ?? Are you really that stupid? Sections 1 A to D lay out exactly the circumstances when it is OK to use reasonable force (smack) on a child ...

" 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."


And sorry - Governments sometimes make decisions which are "undemocratic" ... like increasing GST ...

[Scuba_Steve]

Jeez .. can't you read ?? Are you really that stupid? Sections 1 A to D lay out exactly the circumstances when it is OK to use reasonable force (smack) on a child ...

" 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."


And sorry - Governments sometimes make decisions which are "undemocratic" ... like increasing GST ...

Yes I can read can you?
Could any part of the said section above be considered "correctional"? I would say all above could be considered "correctional" in-which section 2 says under NO circumstances does anything in section 1 give you the right to smack your kids.
So section 2 contradicts section 1 & overrules it as the law is written.

[Banditbandit]

Yes I can read can you?
Could any part of the said section above be considered "correctional"? I would say all above could be considered "correctional" in-which section 2 says under NO circumstances does anything in section 1 give you the right to smack your kids.
So section 2 contradicts section 1 & overrules it as the law is written.

No. The law goes to the motivation, not the action ... same as it does in the difference between Murder and Manslaughter - someone is dead in both cases because of the actions of someone else - the difference is MOTIVE, not action ...

[Winston001]

No. The law goes to the motivation, not the action ... same as it does in the difference between Murder and Manslaughter - someone is dead in both cases because of the actions of someone else - the difference is MOTIVE, not action ...

Lets keep it accurate mens rea is what you mean by motive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

And the physical deed is the actus reus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

[Clockwork]

Jeez .. can't you read ?? Are you really that stupid? Sections 1 A to D lay out exactly the circumstances when it is OK to use reasonable force (smack) on a child ...

" 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."


And sorry - Governments sometimes make decisions which are "undemocratic" ... like increasing GST ...

As I read that act, it states that you may not "assault" a child for the purposes of correction. You may however assault them by way of physically restraining them for those purposes defined in clauses a-d.

From my POV even the lightest slap could be interpreted as correction and effectively in breach of this act (unless you were slapping away say a hand that heading toward a circular saw or some such) Under any other circumstances you probably be at the "discretion" of any investigating Police Officer.

The problem with that is that there is a very good case to say that the Police should not become Judge and Jury, such matters are best decided by the Courts.
Of course the Courts (the jury of our peers an'all) having heard all the evidence, would often return verdicts that the media and other non participants found unpalatable. So the politicians choose to replace on set of ambiguous clauses with another.

In the end it comes down to whether we want our courts to uphold the spirit of the law in light of what a sample of our society (jurors) consider appropriate or the just letter of the law, in which case lets do away with juries altogether (as we seem to be doing progressively).

We might as well just leave the law as it stands and let the Police issue infringement notices for such "minor" offenses.

[Scuba_Steve]

No. The law goes to the motivation, not the action ... same as it does in the difference between Murder and Manslaughter - someone is dead in both cases because of the actions of someone else - the difference is MOTIVE, not action ...

so what "correctional" is pre meditated & illegal but if you beat da shit outta them in a fit of rage to prevent the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour that's acceptable because it wasn't premeditated correctional it was a temporary fit of rage to stop their disruptive behaviour.

"She was screaming her head off so I used "reasonable force" of a 4x2 to stop her from continuing her disruptive behaviour your honour"

[oneofsix]

so what "correctional" is pre meditated & illegal but if you beat da shit outta them in a fit of rage to prevent the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour that's acceptable because it wasn't premeditated correctional it was a temporary fit of rage to stop their disruptive behaviour.

I don't think "fit of rage" is "preventative"
I do like c though. It is amazing how a quick slap will shut up a screaming kid.

[Skyryder]

Section 1 (a) to (d) clearly states the circumstances that the law allows the use of force. Some see sections (a) to (d) as correctional. It could be equally argued that the use of force is to educate the child as to what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. (see police guidelines at the end of this post) This interpretation of the law is the one that I believe is the intent of the legislation; that of parental education where force is allowed. Others who oppose the legislation seem to be fixated with the interpretation of the legislation for ‘correctional’ purposes only and as such see sections 2 and 3 as the overriding intent of the legislation. On this basis where the use of force is used for correction the parent is breaking the law.
However section (d) gives parents a pretty wide latitude and any competent lawyer providing there was no injury to the child would get an acquittal.

It is the ‘intent’ of the legislation that many, for their own reasons, dismiss. I suspect that they would sooner see juries find parents not guilty with a defence of ‘reasonable force’, as was happening under the old legislation, where children had been injured to the extent of bruising and other injuries.

The full legislation

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.
Adults assaulting children no longer have the legal defence of "reasonable force" but "force ... may ... be for the purposes of restraint ... or, by way of example, to ensure compliance", according to the police practice guide.

Section 4 Says it all.



Skyryder

[avgas]

Beat the shit out of kids when they do wrong.
Beat the shit out of adults when they do wrong.

The law is to be enforced or not applied at all.

[shrub]

Police action/inaction. If anyone has wanted the cops to investigate a burglary or other form of theft, they're really not interested because they are far too busy, so can anyone anticipate the cops wasting time prosecuting Mike and Mary Citizen for loving tapping little Tarquin on the botty to stop him running out in front of a truck? The most that will happen is Mike and Mary will get a phone call.

But if the cops think Mike and Mary might just be actual or potential child abusers, they will take action because they won't face the frustration of a smart arse lawyer using the reasonable force excuse. Which means Mike and Mary might just be stopped from doing worse.

The law took away a tool used by lawyers to keep the guilty free.

Incidentally, that guy who "flicked" his son's ear - he's a really strange character, and the word on the street is that he does some pretty ugly stuff, which is why the cops prosecuted.

[Banditbandit]

Lets keep it accurate mens rea is what you mean by motive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

And the physical deed is the actus reus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

Yeah .. I was trying to keep it reasonably simple for KBers ...

Generally, I think it is a good law and works well. Family First and others continue to stir the pot and posit worst-case senarios which have not eventuated and are not factual .. I see no reason to continue this debate .. so I am out of this one ...

[mashman]

This interpretation of the law is the one that I believe is the intent of the legislation; that of parental education where force is allowed.

I thought the reason the law was changed was to remove intrepretations of the law in question? I've seen at least 3 or 4 different interpretations in this thread alone. What was the point if it's up to the discretion of the Judge at the end of the day?

[Winston001]

I thought the reason the law was changed was to remove intrepretations of the law in question? I've seen at least 3 or 4 different interpretations in this thread alone. What was the point if it's up to the discretion of the Judge at the end of the day?

The change to Section 59 was to tighten it up. Previously some parents convinced juries their extreme punishments were reasonable.

Also Section 59 had been read as legal permission to physically assault your children which isn't a good message if we are to have a safe society.

The section was never - and is never expected to stop the small number of contemptible creatures who deliberately children. Just as the law against murder doesn't stop it happening.

[Coldrider]

The purpose of the Act says it all.

Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

[mashman]

The change to Section 59 was to tighten it up. Previously some parents convinced juries their extreme punishments were reasonable.

Also Section 59 had been read as legal permission to physically assault your children which isn't a good message if we are to have a safe society.

So what has changed:

The Act.

What has stayed the same:

The Parents (both good and bad)
The Excuses.
The Juries.
The Judges.

As coldrider points out

Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

If all I have to do is prove prevention and not correction, then I'm home and hosed. The only thing that has changed is the Act.

The section was never - and is never expected to stop the small number of contemptible creatures who deliberately children. Just as the law against murder doesn't stop it happening.

So who is it supposed to stop if all you need to do is prove prevention. I could smack for correction purposes and give an entirely different reason for the injuries. Kinda seems pointless, given that the only thing that has changed is the Act. The parents/lawyers will make the same excuses, but with a prevention bias...

I didn't want my child to burn herself on the heater she was moving towards, so I smacked her and in doing so she fell against the heater. Don't get me wrong, I see what you're getting at, but I don't see the law having been tightened at all... and don't believe that you really can tighten it short of specifying the level/style of "assault" you're allowed to administer.