Don't smack your kids...

**Winston001** · 2nd February 2011, 21:08

This law is simple compared to other pieces of law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the new Section 59 is as flawed as its critics say, where are the hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions?

?

This amended law is working. That is the crucial issue.

**Mully** · 2nd February 2011, 21:12

Originally Posted by Winston001

This law is simple compared to other pieces of law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the new Section 59 is as flawed as its critics say, where are the hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions?

?

This amended law is working. That is the crucial issue.

I didn't say it was flawed - I said it wasn't required. And I maintain that. I never fell in with "the sky is falling" scaremongers on this one.

Particularly with the costs involved (didn't that fucking referndum cost $11m or some such),

**mashman** · 2nd February 2011, 21:16

Originally Posted by Winston001

This law is simple compared to other pieces of law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the new Section 59 is as flawed as its critics say, where are the hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions?

?

This amended law is working. That is the crucial issue.

All I can go on is what I have read on the Family First site and the documents there and there do seem to have been unnecessaary convictions...

As for what is working. Let's say it's the law

**Coldrider** · 2nd February 2011, 22:17

Originally Posted by mashman

All I can go on is what I have read on the Family First site and the documents there and there do seem to have been unnecessaary convictions...

As for what is working. Let's say it's the law

Just about all the media I have found on anti smacking law is tainted by particular groups.

**Skyryder** · 3rd February 2011, 11:22

The new act removed the defence of ‘reasonable force.’ That essentially was its purpose for reasons that I have previously stated.

The new legislation is pretty clear where force may be used and at the same time leaves wide latitude where it may be applied.

There is some confusion over 2 and 3.

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).

2 simply states that (a) (b) (c) and (d) can not be used for the purposes of correction.

2 states this in plain language.

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

3 reinforces this by stating that 2 prevails over subsection (1).

Many interpret 3 as 2 over riding (a) (b) (c) and (d). This as the legislation clearly states only applies for the purpose of correction and not where force may be lawfully used as applicable in (a) (b) (c_ and (d).

Skyryder

Skyryder

**Scuba_Steve** · 3rd February 2011, 11:34

Originally Posted by Winston001

This law is simple compared to other pieces of law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the new Section 59 is as flawed as its critics say, where are the hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions?

?

This amended law is working. That is the crucial issue.

If it is working how many child abuses has it stopped?
As Mully said it was not needed.
The only thing I can see it doing over the old law is making it harder for innocent people, just like gun laws. and while there might not be "hundreds of unnecessary prosecutions" now it doesn't mean there won't be, speed laws were round long before they turned it into the scam cash cow it is today. So as I've said before best hope they never move their quota system over to child abuse.

**marie_speeds** · 3rd February 2011, 11:50

End of last year just before start of school holidays was walking along when approached by two police officers looking for a mother and her two children. Someone had reported that she "roughly" grabbed one of her daughters by the arm to prevent them from stepping out onto the road. This particular road is not a main one by one that leads to many other streets, so has high usage. It has a downhill slope and average speed would probably be around the 65km mark. On occasion I have witnessed cars doing what I believe to be closer to 100km/hr and higher.

My response to the police officer was to ask if they actually had anything better to do......

**mashman** · 3rd February 2011, 12:36

Originally Posted by Skyryder

The new act removed the defence of ‘reasonable force.’ That essentially was its purpose for reasons that I have previously stated.

hmmmm, that's a bit confusing...

"(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,b,c,d) etc..."

So you're saying that being justified in using force if the force used is reasonable, is not the same as using 'reasonable force'? I didn't pass English as a subject so may well have the wrong end of the stick

...as for the rest, 2 overriding 1 for correction purposes

, great, yes, we get it, pointless, but we get it and when the time comes, we'll plead prevention

... subsection 3, ABSOLUTELY COMICAL... they must have been laughing their arses off when they put that one in there... just making sure where they

Yet another ill conceived money waster from parliament...

**MisterD** · 3rd February 2011, 12:41

Originally Posted by mashman

...as for the rest, 2 overriding 1 for correction purposes

, great, yes, we get it, pointless, but we get it and when the time comes, we'll plead prevention

... subsection 3, ABSOLUTELY COMICAL... they must have been laughing their arses off when they put that one in there... just making sure where they

Yet another ill conceived money waster from parliament...

I think the intent was quite clearly to ban smacking completely but to still allow other use of force that would be an assault in adult terms ie pick up, restrain, forcibly move whatever...

**Clockwork** · 3rd February 2011, 13:20

Exacerry!. So the moral of the story is; don't smack your kids in public, drag them off somewhere private to do it, leave no physical evidence.

Bit like speeding really, its only an offense if someone sees you do it.

**MisterD** · 3rd February 2011, 13:24

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Exacerry!. So the moral of the story is; don't smack your kids in public, drag them off somewhere private to do it, leave no physical evidence.

Heh. I've only had to leave the supermarket with MasterD slung over my shoulder the once...

**mashman** · 3rd February 2011, 17:37

Originally Posted by MisterD

I think the intent was quite clearly to ban smacking completely but to still allow other use of force that would be an assault in adult terms ie pick up, restrain, forcibly move whatever...

To me it's as clear as mud and if the intent was that clear, it would have said "no smacking" somewhere in the Act... but it doesn't.

Is your interpretation different to skyryders? because it looks that way to me

**dipshit** · 3rd February 2011, 19:00

Don't have kids.

That'll learn em.

**Skyryder** · 3rd February 2011, 19:01

Originally Posted by mashman

hmmmm, that's a bit confusing...

"(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,b,c,d) etc..."

So you're saying that being justified in using force if the force used is reasonable, is not the same as using 'reasonable force'? I didn't pass English as a subject so may well have the wrong end of the stick

...as for the rest, 2 overriding 1 for correction purposes

, great, yes, we get it, pointless, but we get it and when the time comes, we'll plead prevention

... subsection 3, ABSOLUTELY COMICAL... they must have been laughing their arses off when they put that one in there... just making sure where they

Yet another ill conceived money waster from parliament...

No it’s not the same. There is an added proviso in that the force must be reasonable in the ‘circumstances.’ You have to read the whole of the sentence in section 1. not just the highlighted bit that you have posted.

Still I do see where you are coming from. There may be some case law that defines section one. I’ll ask my daughter on this next time I see her. She’s a lawyer. No guarantee that she will know. This is not her area of expertise.

Skyryder

**mashman** · 3rd February 2011, 19:22

Originally Posted by Skyryder

No it’s not the same. There is an added proviso in that the force must be reasonable in the ‘circumstances.’ You have to read the whole of the sentence in section 1. not just the highlighted bit that you have posted.

Still I do see where you are coming from. There may be some case law that defines section one. I’ll ask my daughter on this next time I see her. She’s a lawyer. No guarantee that she will know. This is not her area of expertise.

Skyryder

Even in the context of the whole sentence, which I did read it in, there is still mention of reasonable force, just not allowed expressly for correction purposes. Lies are lies, proving prevention instead of correction shouldn't be too hard for a lawyer, even a crap one. That's why I consider that the Act and its new wording to be just as open to interpretation as it always has been... after all, same judges, same parents and an excuse to fit the circumstances. Unfortunately this may also catch, as "reported", good parents, who will be criminalised in the name of upholding the law

. Granted there is still discretion of Police/Judges/CYF etc... but that has always been there.

I'm guessing that she sees it from both sides

That being the case, the whole debacle was just a waste of time and money.