Disciplining your children

[Winston001]

Just for the record there is no such thing as an "anti-smacking law".

The law says one person must not assault another. There are exceptions - police officers in execution of their duty etc.

The topical exception here is parents may defend a charge of assault on their child as follows:

• Every parent of a child....is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances...

[FJRider]

Just for the record there is no such thing as an "anti-smacking law".

The law says one person must not assault another. There are exceptions - police officers in execution of their duty etc.

The topical exception here is parents may defend a charge of assault on their child as follows:

• Every parent of a child....is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances...

It's quite funny (ok ... not really) that those the "Anti-smacking bill" was introduced to combat the abuse of their children ... are the very one's that continue to offend. And the cycle of the new generation continues the tradition ...

Yet the dad that gives a firm smack to the backside of his 6 year-old in the supermarket ... for throwing a tantrum because he isn't allowed lollies ... and 3 do-gooders make a complaint to police and he ends up in court. The do-gooders pat themselves on the back, and the dad gets arrested because complaints have been made and they must be seen to be taking action.

Interesting reading ...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00020.htm

[Maha]

Worked well for me, in fact, being spanked every now and then still helps...

[Winston001]

It's quite funny (ok ... not really) that those the "Anti-smacking bill" was introduced to combat the abuse of their children ...

Interesting reading ...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00020.htm

Naughty! That link dates from 2007 before the amendment to S 59 was passed into law. Since then there have been no actual prosecutions that offend common sense. Judges won't put up with having their time wasted by petty charges and the police have far worse to deal with. You are extremely unlikely to be arrested for smacking Johnny on the bottom in the supermarket.

[Virago]

...The topical exception here is parents may defend a charge of assault on their child as follows:

• Every parent of a child....is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances...

That would always have to be the case. Children being afforded full adult rights when under the control of their parents would result in some farcical situations - perhaps the fall-back parental control of "Time Out" would result in charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment...

The reality is that S59 was a complete waste of time. It simply serves to undermine the confidence of normal parents - while the real villians continue to cheerfully batter their children in alarming numbers. It has achieved nothing.

[xXGIBBOXx]

Im not good at watching the news and jazz , but wasnt the law put in place so they would have something to charge them with and the familys that close doors and like when a baby is beaten to dead ? A clip round the ear and belt to the ass never did me any harm when i was growing up . And if i stepped out of line when i was at school it wasnt the teachers i feared it was the old man . kids these days know there rights and play on them to get away with half the shit i wouldnt have dreamed of for fear of not walking right for week .

[tigertim20]

i could care less what their laws are. they're not my laws. .

You sound like one of them fuckin Tuhoe independant state tame iti fuckin idiots . . .

It's quite funny (ok ... not really) that those the "Anti-smacking bill" was introduced to combat the abuse of their children ... are the very one's that continue to offend. And the cycle of the new generation continues the tradition ...

Yet the dad that gives a firm smack to the backside of his 6 year-old in the supermarket ... for throwing a tantrum because he isn't allowed lollies ... and 3 do-gooders make a complaint to police and he ends up in court. The do-gooders pat themselves on the back, and the dad gets arrested because complaints have been made and they must be seen to be taking action.

Interesting reading ...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00020.htm

I agree with ya trev.
The law that was introduced does little or nothing to fix the problem it was designed to combat.
Those who were likely to seriously beat, bash, and cause harm to their children, or children in their care, are just as likely as ever to do so.
The difference now is that reasonable, responsible parents, are at risk of becoming criminals in the eyes of the law because their otherwise acceptable parenting strategies can be perceived as a serious affront to the welfare of a child if the law is taken seriously.
Its a joke.

The law should be biffed out (it was rushed through anyway and lacked the time required to really look at and make into something worth doing anyway) and they should find a better way of actually combating the problem that still plagues us

[mashman]

Naughty! That link dates from 2007 before the amendment to S 59 was passed into law. Since then there have been no actual prosecutions that offend common sense. Judges won't put up with having their time wasted by petty charges and the police have far worse to deal with. You are extremely unlikely to be arrested for smacking Johnny on the bottom in the supermarket.

Does it stop the stress and the strain in regards to the worry it causes wondering how far it's going to go?

[Winston001]

The law that was introduced does little or nothing to fix the problem it was designed to combat.
Those who were likely to seriously beat, bash, and cause harm to their children, or children in their care, are just as likely as ever to do so.

The difference now is that reasonable, responsible parents, are at risk of becoming criminals in the eyes of the law

The law should be biffed out it was rushed through anyway...

I do understand what you are saying Tim. Many good people think the same and that is because the whole Section 59 Crimes Act 1961 debate was poorly reported by the media.

Let me ask you this: if the amended S 59 was so useless, so abysmally out of step with the population, and opposed by 89% in a petition - why did Parliament pass it almost unanimously? Despite all the hate and vitriol why did every Party support it?

Could it be that MPs understood what the law was aiming for? To reduce parent defences where they used vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips on their kids? Because that is what happened previously. Would you do that to your kids??

[Akzle]

Let me ask you this: if the amended S 59 was so useless, so abysmally out of step with the population, and opposed by 89% in a petition - why did Parliament pass it almost unanimously? Despite all the hate and vitriol why did every Party support it?

oooh! oooh! i know the answer to this one!

it's because your government dont give half a shit about what you think. they're not acting as representative governments should, that is: make the will of the people the law (statute).
...not the first time, wont be the last.

but which of the sheep will do anything about it?
who will cow that vicious shepherd, especially when trying to do so results in him putting the dogs on you?
back to the flock. bleat all you want, just don't dare do anything.

tuhoe? no. tama iti? no, fucken idiot? no, independent state? no.
sovereign by my own right? well.. who's going to challenge that?

[Tigadee]

To reduce parent defences where they used vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips on their kids? Because that is what happened previously. Would you do that to your kids??

You mean it was legal to use vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips before and now thanks to S59, it is illegal? Well, in that case, thank goodness for that!

- perhaps the fall-back parental control of "Time Out" would result in charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment...

I prefer the American-style term of "involuntary incarceration"... :laugh

I'd rather the shitbags are removed from class, If they aren't prepared to learn then no need to allow them to drag down the rest. Their parents have already fucked their chances.

Shitbag kids should be sent to boot camps... in Australia.

[Winston001]

You mean it was legal to use vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips before and now thanks to S59, it is illegal? Well, in that case, thank goodness for that!

Yes. There were two cases where parents were prosecuted for doing the above. They used the old S 59 defence of reasonable discipline in that family, and the juries acquitted them. There are other cases such as a father who chained his daughter up.


As for those who point to children still getting bashed by parents - murder is also illegal but it still occurs. Should we allow murder on the basis that its going to happen anyway?

[MSTRS:Me]

S59 allowed for 'reasonable force'. Slapper Bradford sought to remove it altogether, but Parliament decided to simply replace it with 'light and inconsequential'. So S59 was never really repealed as such, just watered down.
I suggest it was rushed through with little trouble (eventually) because the Slapper threatened to kiss each and every dissenter...

[Clockwork]

Yes. There were two cases where parents were prosecuted for doing the above. They used the old S 59 defence of reasonable discipline in that family, and the juries acquitted them. There are other cases such as a father who chained his daughter up.


As for those who point to children still getting bashed by parents - murder is also illegal but it still occurs. Should we allow murder on the basis that its going to happen anyway?

So after attending the trial, listening to all the evidence and taking on board the advice of the judge, these people were judged and acquitted by a jury of there own peers (which is how it should be surely) But apparently non-participants knew better and consequently felt they had to change the law to save society from such idiotic juries?

[Edbear]

Shitbag kids are created by shitbag influences, namely their parents and family.

The smacking law has zero influence on this situation.

I'd rather the shitbags are removed from class, If they aren't prepared to learn then no need to allow them to drag down the rest. Their parents have already fucked their chances.

+1

I do understand what you are saying Tim. Many good people think the same and that is because the whole Section 59 Crimes Act 1961 debate was poorly reported by the media.

Let me ask you this: if the amended S 59 was so useless, so abysmally out of step with the population, and opposed by 89% in a petition - why did Parliament pass it almost unanimously? Despite all the hate and vitriol why did every Party support it?

Could it be that MPs understood what the law was aiming for? To reduce parent defences where they used vacuum cleaner cords and riding whips on their kids? Because that is what happened previously. Would you do that to your kids??

Yes. There were two cases where parents were prosecuted for doing the above. They used the old S 59 defence of reasonable discipline in that family, and the juries acquitted them. There are other cases such as a father who chained his daughter up.

As for those who point to children still getting bashed by parents - murder is also illegal but it still occurs. Should we allow murder on the basis that its going to happen anyway?

Will you please stop being logical and calm, it is detracting from the tone of the thread...