Get ready to hit your kids...

[MSTRS:Me]

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.

But it still fails to define 'reasonable'. As far as I and the great majority of NZers are concerned, if a change was necessary, it was that 'reasonable' only needed to be clarified...ie open hand, no implement, LZ limited to hand or buttock.

[Clockwork]

Jeez what semantic bull!! the crux of the matter is the new Section 2 removes ANY justification for the use of ANY force for the purpose of correction (ie punshment). All further debates about what constitues "resonable force" are rendered irrelevent.

Section 4 effectively takes the jury out of the equation and sets up the police as the final arbiters of what is "incosequential", once they choose to prosecute a jury will theoretically have no choice but to convict.

[MSTRS:Me]

Jeez what semantic bull!! the crux of the matter is the new Section 2 removes ANY justification for the use of ANY force for the purpose of correction (ie punshment). All further debates about what constitues "resonable force" are rendered irrelevent.

Yep...a parent is not allowed to use any type of force for the purposes of correction (punishment). What makes the State think their form of correction (Dept of -) can do better? Because it is plain that it is not doing a very good job.

Section 4 effectively takes the jury out of the equation and sets up the police as the final arbiters of what is "incosequential", once they choose to prosecute a jury will theoretically have no choice but to convict.

A jury can always decide the case is not proven. If it is as you say, why bother with court at all? For any charge the Farce decide to bring?

[Winston001]

Section 4 effectively takes the jury out of the equation and sets up the police as the final arbiters of what is "incosequential", once they choose to prosecute a jury will theoretically have no choice but to convict.

Understand your point. In reality the police prosecutors, indeed the cop on the spot, have a discretion as to whether to charge a person. Apparently about 25,000 complaints/year (all sorts, not child related) are not prosecuted.

[Winston001]

But it still fails to define 'reasonable'. As far as I and the great majority of NZers are concerned, if a change was necessary, it was that 'reasonable' only needed to be clarified...ie open hand, no implement, LZ limited to hand or buttock.

Yes it would be so much simpler and I agree some sort of definition would be good. However abusive treatment of children takes many forms eg. hard grasping/twisting of an arm or an ear, it isn't always hitting.

[MSTRS:Me]

Yes it would be so much simpler and I agree some sort of definition would be good. However abusive treatment of children takes many forms eg. hard grasping/twisting of an arm or an ear, it isn't always hitting.

That's the difference.

[Winston001]

When I was a kid, I got hold of some matches and made a nice little fire out of dry pine needles. As kids will (or not) I gave no thought to where this little fire was situated. I thought I put it out (by dumping a big load of green pine needles on top of it) Needless to say, a slightly LARGER fire was later discovered by my old man. Yep...
Now, in today's brave new world, I wouldn't learn such a sharp lesson, since I could not be smacked except if I was discovered in the commission of starting this fire. Who knows, perhaps I would have gone on to burn down schools and - and - and - and - stuff. But no, the punishment smack saw an end to my firebug career.

That worked for you. In my case I set fire to a little bit of dry grass only to see it flare up and burn straw on the garden up against our house. There was a strong wind blowing.......and we lived in the country, no fire-engines nearby.

My parents didn't smack me, didn't even really tell me off. I didn't need it. The frightened looks on their faces as they frantically worked to put the fire out was enough punishment for me. Panic stations for the whole family and I learned a deep lesson.

[Winston001]

That's the difference.

Ok. Write a definition for us to think about.

[Jantar]

...And it doesn't stop parents from giving their children a reasonable corrective smack, its aimed at abusive parents who treat kids like property and who beat them for every perceived slight in the name of 'punishment'. ...

Unfortunately, that is exactly what it does do.

It is now illegal to use a smack as a correction method. The law was never aimed at abusive parents, as they were already covered. It has never been legal (well not for the past 100 years) to beat or abuse your children.

[Jantar]

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

But society doesn't allow injury to a child. Not even the old law condoned injury. Similarly, I'm not aware of any cases where a smack on the bum has caused injury.

[MSTRS:Me]

Ok. Write a definition for us to think about.

A definition of what? Abuse? At what point a corrective smack becomes abuse?

[MSTRS:Me]

But society doesn't allow injury to a child. Not even the old law condoned injury. Similarly, I'm not aware of any cases where a smack on the bum has caused injury.

Exactly. And injured pride doesn't count.

[Skyryder]

Section 4 effectively takes the jury out of the equation and sets up the police as the final arbiters of what is "incosequential", once they choose to prosecute a jury will theoretically have no choice but to convict.

(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.


Where does it say that a jury must convict?


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

But society doesn't allow injury to a child. Not even the old law condoned injury. Similarly, I'm not aware of any cases where a smack on the bum has caused injury.

Jurys deliverd not guiltly verdicts where injury was suistained It matters not one whit how the injury was caused, children were injured and jurys were letting parents off with the defence of reasonable cause. There is just no way of getting round that fact no matter how much anyone tries to minimise the cause or effect or for that matter, justification.


Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

Where does it say that a jury must convict?

At no time, in any case, must a jury convict. In fact, I'd say that at times a jury has found not guilty in the face of all evidence. Fickle things, juries. Will that be the next target of the zealots...you know, the ones that insist that they know best on our behalf?