Get ready to hit your kids...

[avgas]

Is it just me or a some here missing the fucking point?
If you touch anyone in an incorrect manor you can be charged and taken to court.......this was how it was before the anti smacking bill.
It was at the police discretion otherwise.
The only difference that was introduced when the bill was introduced was the political swing where a party could say that they were for/against it.
It is actually meaningless in court as the parent will be charge with assault.
If we really wanted to stop kids getting beaten up then it has to come from the culture in NZ. If you see a kid get a swipe to many call the cops. Or if your really brave walk up and blast the parent.
Introducing new laws is just paper pushing in a political debate. The old laws were not broken - but unused.

[Clockwork]

Try telling Clockwork that. He thinks that section four is a directive.


Skyryder

Sorry, I am unfamilier with what rights juries have to ignore the letter of the law when returning a verdict. If you are telling me they are free to thumb their collective noses at the statues, fine, I'll take your word for it but somehow I would expect that judge to some up by pointing out what Section 2 means in terms of using any form of "assult" as a punishment.

IMHO it would take a pretty ballsy jury full of like minded people to ignore such a direction.

[Skyryder]

Sorry, I am unfamilier with what rights juries have to ignore the letter of the law when returning a verdict. If you are telling me they are free to thumb their collective noses at the statues, fine, I'll take your word for it but somehow I would expect that judge to some up by pointing out what Section 2 means in terms of using any form of "assult" as a punishment.

IMHO it would take a pretty ballsy jury full of like minded people to ignore such a direction.

This is what you wrote. 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.

The police offer evidence to the Court. The judge determines if the evidence is lawfull and in summing, up directs the jury on the relevent points of law. They do not give instructions to the jury on how they must find the accused.

Juries decide on guilt or innocence on the evidence supplied.

Section four 'does not' take juries out of the equation. The Police are not the fianal arbiters of what is inconsequential.


Skyryder
__________________

[Clockwork]

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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (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.
Subsection (1) was substituted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(2) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Subsection (3) was inserted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(3) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Section 59 was substituted, as from 21 June 2007, by section 5 Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 18).
The above is the new law. Lets deal with some facts. Sur Bradford’s bill is not an anti smacking bill as so many claim.
• (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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

There are four clearly defined reasons parents can smack their children. That is (a) (b) (c) (d).

The Act that we have Crimes Act 2007 replaced the Crimes Act 1961 which stated in statute “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.”

1 allows the use of force and even if the legislation does not use the word ‘smack’ it is obvious to all but a cretin, that force and smack are as one. Like wise 1 allows for ‘correction’ of behavior if applied to (a) (b) (c). The word ‘correction’ is not used but that is the purpose of 1 it allows the use of a smack to correct behavior when applied to (a) (b) (c).


• (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—
•
• (d). performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(d) seems ride ranging to me so what’s the problem.

On the surface it looks like Bradford has widened the area of potential violence instead of reducing it. Under the old legislation “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child. That’s right just in case you missed, it was parents and no one else. Not now

Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent.

So now you not only have the parent but someone in place of the parent who can smack your child in four clearly legislated reasons and one of them is very loose indeed. And what does the Christian right come up with; these bastions of parental good will?

A referendum with the question
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be criminal offence in New Zealand.

So not content with four clearly defined pieces of legislation the Christian Right want 'five' where Mum Dad and “or a person in place of a parent” can lawfully ‘smack a child. The Christian Right in their obsession to the Clarke and the Labour Govt have so completely lost the plot that there is a real chance that if this question is passed into law more children will be injured with less chances of successful prosecutions than before.

Skyryder

I feel you've completely mis-interpreted paragraphs a through d. As I stated earlier these excuse "assult" in the sense of physical restraint or any other action that would require you to touch or handle a child without their explicit consent!!

I say again, for the hard of hearing.... Section 2 (which takes president over section 1 as stated in section 3) removes ALL justification for the use of force for the purposes of correction "Thou shalt not smack!"

[Skyryder]

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?

Of course a jury must not convict. That's what they are there for to decide.


But where injury has been sustained by a child some juries considered this reasonable force and were aquited. You may differ from myself on this but any kind of injury in my opinion is not reasonable force. That defence was removed and rightly so for the very reason you state. Fickleness.

Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

As I said earlier, this has more to do with hating Sue Bradford and Clark's Nanny State.

The names don't matter, it's the intent behind their doings that rankles.

The "Big Brother" nanny state mentality is creeping further in. If the security cameras do not catch you breaking some law, then the Devout Labourite sectarians will be straight on the phone to the thought police.
This is exactly where the Looney Labourite Sect is taking this country.

Yep. Britain is no better, either. It's the only possible outcome to a series of controlling laws vs a resentful population vicious circle.

Not. The Privacy Commissioner would have a coronary if he knew people believed that.

I believe it. All the reports of parents dealt with by the police that did not end in prosecution, ended with the parent(s) being 'cautioned'... What's the point of that if it's not on record?

I was smacked as a kid by one of my parents...

Did it work? NOPE all it did was teach me to be sneakier and to not get caught. Did I respect this parent for it or at all? NOPE Did it do our relationship any good at all? HELL NO

With or without the legislation that's MY choice.

Not every child needs this sort of parenting. What works for one child is counter-productive with another. Your parents had the same choices that you do, except they had more leeway on matters of corporal punishment.

....repetitive postings of the legislation...

We know what it says. And it's still vague enough that we can all interpret it in different ways. The intent, however, is well understood. Statistics apparently say that 85% of us don't like it or want it as it is.

All kids are different, and creating some govt approved parenting method won't change that. They are individuals, and respond differently to rewards and punishments.

Yep. There are also thousands of books, written by 'experts' on how to raise children. With some very contradictory theories. How can a failed parent and ex-political agitator know better than so-called experts who don't agree with each other?

Not correct. Taking the law back to what it was just means that it is legal to use some reasonable fore as a means of correction. That does not mean that it is acceptable, and certainly not mandatory. It simply gives parents a tool that the present law has taken away from them.

We don't need to go back to the old wording. We need for it to be clarified. Objective, not subjective. Your 'light and inconsequential' is different to mine, etc...

once again, family first is not a reliable source of information, they lie to get stupid people onside

Who's relying on that lot? And where did they lie? And where did any of us say we agree with their philosophies? By referring to case histories that FF have collected, we are simply using the resource to illustrate what thinking people are saying about the results of the change to S59. Insulting our intelligence won't make us 'see the light'. We've already seen it...it's the overnight ExpressToHell barrelling down upon us. But we're not trapped on the tracks...we're preparing to derail the bastard.

[Jantar]

....But where injury has been sustained by a child some juries considered this reasonable force and were aquited. You may differ from myself on this but any kind of injury in my opinion is not reasonable force. That defence was removed and rightly so for the very reason you state. Fickleness.

Skyryder

But we are not discussing beatings and/or abuse. This debate is about smacking. If injury occurs, then that has gone beyond smacking.

...
We don't need to go back to the old wording. We need for it to be clarified. Objective, not subjective. Your 'light and inconsequential' is different to mine, etc...

....

Quite right. Its just that the old wording is still better than the present. Bring back the Chester Burrow ammendment.

[_Shrek_]

Q/ you wonder why kids rule the roost
A/ they're being taught from pre school it's alegal for parents to smack them

Q/ why are our tenages off the rails
A/ they have no boundrys

Answer to the present problem LET THE PARENTS DO THEIR JOB
& keep the sorry ass wannabees who don't have kids or batting for the same side who don't no shit about bringing up kids, why because they're morale & emotionally screwd up
this also includes the PC brigade

there is a place for smacking it's on their ASS no where else

& if you don't like what I've said build a bridge

[Winston001]

Is it just me or a some here missing the fucking point?
If you touch anyone in an incorrect manor you can be charged and taken to court.......this was how it was before the anti smacking bill.
It was at the police discretion otherwise.
The only difference that was introduced when the bill was introduced was the political swing where a party could say that they were for/against it.
It is actually meaningless in court as the parent will be charge with assault.
If we really wanted to stop kids getting beaten up then it has to come from the culture in NZ. If you see a kid get a swipe to many call the cops. Or if your really brave walk up and blast the parent.
Introducing new laws is just paper pushing in a political debate. The old laws were not broken - but unused.

Agreed. Right-on. That is the point - change our culture. Without a different approach to child discipline and violent conflict in our society, the tightened law will be useless.

[Clockwork]

..... They do not give instructions to the jury on how they must find the accused.
...

I was using the term "direction" in the sense that Judges direct the jury on the meaning/intent of the statutes pertinant to the case being tried.

However, while I can't cite supporting evidence and there may well be particular points of law that allow this to happen that may well not be applicable in the sorts of cases we are discussing; I know I've heard/read reports whereby juries have been directed to return a specific verdict!

Regardless, my point was/is that it is very unlikely that any jury would/could return a unanimous virdict contrary to the letter of the law and the facts of the case.

[MSTRS:Me]

Quite right. Its just that the old wording is still better than the present. Bring back the Chester Burrow amendment.

I don't recall the wording of that amendment. But the old wording (reasonable force) is really little different to the new (light and inconsequential).
Circumstances do need to be taken into account, but the riding crop incident is a good example of the old wording working as intended. It would seem that a lash (or two/three/whatever) averted a greater crime, so was reasonable in those circumstances. Under today's wording that mother would have gone to jail for child abuse/aggravated assault/GBH...or...obeyed the law, buried her husband, and seen her child off to jail for murder/manslaughter.

[devnull]

Is it just me or a some here missing the fucking point?
If you touch anyone in an incorrect manor you can be charged and taken to court.......this was how it was before the anti smacking bill.
It was at the police discretion otherwise.
The only difference that was introduced when the bill was introduced was the political swing where a party could say that they were for/against it.
It is actually meaningless in court as the parent will be charge with assault.
If we really wanted to stop kids getting beaten up then it has to come from the culture in NZ. If you see a kid get a swipe to many call the cops. Or if your really brave walk up and blast the parent.
Introducing new laws is just paper pushing in a political debate. The old laws were not broken - but unused.

Exactly. Laws were already in place - it was enforcement of those laws that was haphazard.

The argument that this law change was to address child abuse was a straw man argument, full of lies and innuendo, but very short on fact.

Sweden was held up as the poster child of the govt campaign, but nothing was said of the 6 other European countries with lower abuse rates and no such draconian law.

Spain was the leader, with no smacking ban.

What was being presented in the UK is what was presented here e.g.

(ii) from the Parliamentary Select Committee on Health:
. . . not all other countries seem to have the same problems with child abuse as Britain does. The experience in Sweden, for example, which has long outlawed the physical punishment of children, is one in which child deaths from deliberate harm by adults are now unknown (author’s italics. House of Commons Health Committee, 2003, p. 17, para. 55);

and

(iii) from ‘Evidence-based health promotion for children and adolescents in
Stockholm county’:
Between 1976 and 1995, 54 children aged 0–14 were murdered or beaten to death in Stockholm county, according to the death register. There were slightly more during the latter decade (1986–1995) compared to the earlier (1976–1986) (Hjern, 1999).

So we can see that while Sweden may be OK, it isn't as perfect as represented

‘Sweden has one of the lowest child abuse death rates in the world’ states the website of a US anti-corporal punishment organization, quoting a Canadian newspaper article (Project No Spank, 2004); ‘. . . in the decade after Sweden fully outlawed smacking and every other form of physical punishment . . . not one single child in Sweden died of physical abuse at the hands of his or her carer’ states the submission to the Victoria Climbié enquiry by the ‘Children are Unbeatable’ Alliance (Children are Unbeatable Alliance, 2004); ‘Between 1975 and 1995, four deaths were attributed to child abuse in Sweden.
In New Zealand during the same period, 240 children were killed.

Sweden has a population of approx 8 million

So now we see that NZ has a pretty crappy record here - Sweden is better, but nowhere near as good as Spain.

What confuses things even more are coding errors

Trocmé and Lindsey (1996, pp. 173–4) review a number of studies which look at the accuracy of such statistics, including Christoffel et al. (1989), who found that 89 per cent of Illinois child deaths classified as ‘undetermined’ could in fact be attributed to child maltreatment, and Kotch et al. (1993), who found in New Zealand that less than a third of child abuse deaths had actually been classified correctly.

Sweden is not in fact the world leader on eliminating child maltreatment deaths. It is either ninth or seventh in the league table of OECD countries, depending on whether or not one chooses to adopt a ‘revised’ measure which aggregates deaths from ‘undetermined causes’ with confirmed child maltreatment deaths (UNICEF, 2003). UNICEF suggests that the revised measure is the more reliable indicator because the unrevised table is ‘too susceptible to marginal random changes and differences in reporting procedures’.

The top 4 countries in the league table (Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland), had no smacking ban, yet very low child maltreatment death rates.

We can see from Jane Millichamp's research that there is no evidence that smacking teaches violence - in fact, those in the study that were smacked as young children performed better both socially and intellectually in later life.

Why were we told lies about the Swedish experiment?

It comes from Joan Durrant's study.

Between 1971 and 1975, five children died in Sweden as a result of physical abuse during incidents in which the caretaker’s motive was ‘a disciplinary measure to eliminate a disturbing behaviour of a child without the intention to kill’ (Somander and Rammer, 1991, p. 53). However, during the ensuing 15 years (1976 to 1990), no children died in Sweden as the result of abuse . . .. Between 1990 and 1996, four children died from the effects of physical abuse; only one of these children was killed by a parent . . . and this rate does not represent a significant increase since 1971 . . . (Durrant, 1999, p. 441).

By ruling out causes such as neglect, postnatal depression and neonaticide cases, and cases of fatal sexual assaults—they become discounted as ‘fatal child abuse’ or as ‘physical abuse’, because she used an artificially narrow definition.

There are, however, many other factors, other than policy on corporal punishment, which might explain the different performance of different countries.

Failure to discuss these factors as possible alternative explanations is another major flaw in the argument that Sweden’s corporal punishment ban has resulted in a fall in child abuse deaths.

If the govt had been sincere, it would have actually looked at the REAL key indicators, and done something about them.

The likelihood of child injury death, both accidental and deliberate, ‘rises steeply with poverty’ states another UNICEF report, and:

. . . the likelihood of a child being injured or killed is also associated with single parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, large family size, and parental drug or alcohol abuse (UNICEF, 2001a, p. 2).

This conclusion is consistent with studies such as that of Greenland (1987) which looked at individual cases of deaths caused by child abuse and neglect, and identified the following parental risk factors in such cases:
‘Aged 20 or less at the birth of their first child’, ‘Single parent/separated; partner not biological parent of child’, ‘Socially isolated—frequent moves—poor housing’, ‘Poverty— unemployed/unskilled worker; inadequate education’, ‘Abuses alcohol and/or drugs’.

[Winston001]

Sorry, I am unfamilier with what rights juries have to ignore the letter of the law when returning a verdict. If you are telling me they are free to thumb their collective noses at the statues, fine, I'll take your word for it but somehow I would expect that judge to some up by pointing out what Section 2 means in terms of using any form of "assault" as a punishment.

IMHO it would take a pretty ballsy jury full of like minded people to ignore such a direction.

Ok, this is how it works. The jury listens to the evidence from witnesses, then arguments from both lawyers, and finally an explanation of the law from the judge.

They then go away and decide what facts they reckon are true (and what sounds untrue), and apply the law to those facts. Then they decide whether there is a reasonable doubt ( = not quite sure) and vote guilty or not guilty.

Juries don't ignore the law but since we do not know what goes on inside the jury room, their normal human emotions sway them just like anyone else.

Examples are assisted suicide which is unlawful (manslaughter or murder) but juries have acquitted people.

There are rare cases where a judge directs a jury verdict of guilty, and others where the jury decision is off-the-wall in terms of the evidence. But largely it is a safe system which works.

[Skyryder]

I feel you've completely mis-interpreted paragraphs a through d. As I stated earlier these excuse "assult" in the sense of physical restraint or any other action that would require you to touch or handle a child without their explicit consent!!

I say again, for the hard of hearing.... Section 2 (which takes president over section 1 as stated in section 3) removes ALL justification for the use of force for the purposes of correction "Thou shalt not smack!"

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction. 1 quotes common law and is a clear reference to assault. Both (a) through to (c) allow the use of force (smack) for the purposes stated. (d) gives a wider rang for good care and parenting.
As the Act is written force and the smack are identical. That needs to be understood and is the very reason of section (a) to (d). You may wish to argue other wise but 2 makes it very clear that force/smack are unlawful for the purpose outside of the parameters of (a) to (c). (d) as mentioned gives a wider latitude where force/smack can be used where it is incidental to good care and parenting. If as you argue that 2 means that the smack is completely unlawful the question must be asked what is the purpose of the statute. Surely if you argument is as you say 'thou shall not smack' there would be no need of this statute as any assault of a child would come under the relevant sections of the Crimes Act.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

I was using the term "direction" in the sense that Judges direct the jury on the meaning/intent of the statutes pertinant to the case being tried.

However, while I can't cite supporting evidence and there may well be particular points of law that allow this to happen that may well not be applicable in the sorts of cases we are discussing; I know I've heard/read reports whereby juries have been directed to return a specific verdict!

Regardless, my point was/is that it is very unlikely that any jury would/could return a unanimous virdict contrary to the letter of the law and the facts of the case.

I am not in disagreement this comment but those quoted by you and to which I responded concerned the so called anti smacking law where you suggested that juries would have no choice but to convict simply on the fact that the police have bought a prosecution.

Skyryder