Smacking kids?

[Ixion]

Unfortunately, Mr Phurrball, your position, though doubtless well intentioned, fails to recognise the practical realities of the situation.

Firstly, the principle de minimus, though valid in law, has no applicability to real world policing.

The Police Family Violence Policy is clear that ANY violence (and if Ms Bradford's Bill is passes, smacking will be violence), no matter how minor , will result in the arrest of any male implicated (women are very seldom arrested in family violence situatiuons, even when they are the violent ones).

Quote from the Police Family Violence Policy

19 Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family
violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested.
In the rare case where action other than arrest is contemplated, the
member's supervisor must be consulted.
Police Bail and Custody
20 Where an arrest has been made, the offender should be kept in
custody until the next available court hearing.

So, if Mrs Grundy sees Junior being givem a smack for being naughty and rushes to call the police, someone WILL be arrested and locked up .

Moreover, in such situations it is an invariable condition of bail that the bailee shall not associate with the "victim" ie dad won't be able to go back home.

This may seem stupid. And it is. but it is the inevitable reality.

[MSTRS:Me]

Unfortunately, Mr Phurrball, ...
This may seem stupid. And it is. but it is the inevitable reality.

Correct. The Law is an Ass. And it is created by 61 asses....to the eternal delight of several thousand lawyers

[Squeak the Rat]

This is called the de minimis approach, and is already used effectively in the enforcement of many laws. Essentially (for those that can't be arsed with the link) the law is not concerned with trifling breaches of laws that are in force.

The definition you linked to rightly says that the courts will not uphold minor breaches. This, and recent comments from the police, imply that the police will investigate & prosecute complaints [edit: what ixion said] and that the courts will decide if de minimis applies. Surely it isn't up to the cops to be judge, jury and executionsers. Cyfs will also no doubt poke their nose in. Which is a lot of hassle hanging over the heads of some great parents who get a complaint from busy body ms Maple next door.

Will the police press charges if I report the neighbours smacking their kids? If not, what kind of training and guidelines are being given to those officers?

So why make these people technically criminals (or whatever the term is for someone who does something illegal) in the first place when a simple clause could be added to say that a light smack won't be illegal (which is what sue and helen are now saying is ok).


Thats all irrespective of wether anyone believes smacking is ok or not. I do challenge any one who believes that no smacking is acceptable to detail how to deal with a kid who refuses to go to time out or to do what you tell them and cant be reasoned with. I think most supporters believe these kids are a myth.....but i'm happy to let you baby sit my nephew which will change your mind.

[Guitana]

Maybe there will be a sharp rise in Busy Body bashings and they will have to pass another bill to curb the violence!!!!!

[Skyryder]

*Sigh*

I'm sorry, I couldn't be arsed reading more than the first and last pages of this thread, as I've a nasty feeling I know the sorts of rant I'm likely to read.

Some legal points:

1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.

What it does, is to repeal the defence in s59 of the Crimes act that allows physical discipline of a child. Yanking your kid off the road, or smacking their hand as they reach for a plug are NOT physical discipline - they are preventative measures to avoid serious harm. (Yes, I know these may fit into the broad interpretation of 'discipline' for some purposes, but they are NOT the same as a smack after the fact.)

If those that gnash and wail knew how inconsistently the section was applied in courts (ie reasonable to beat a child with a riding crop and a litany of other woeful examples in judgments), they might see why the current state of the law is not a happy one - and why change is needed.

2) This will not criminalise parents that use minimal force to discipline their child.

This is called the de minimis approach, and is already used effectively in the enforcement of many laws. Essentially (for those that can't be arsed with the link) the law is not concerned with trifling breaches of laws that are in force.

Yes, this will not prevent cases like Lillybing, the Kahui twins etc - but they are abuse, and culpable honicide cases, and are breaches of different parts of criminal law and part of a broader societal problem.

What it may do is make us think about how we discipline our children - which is no bad thing IMHO. Such sections have been repealed in a number of countries already, and their respective societies have not crumbled.

There are a number of constitutional reasons why NZ often leads the world in the law reflecting changes in society: Short terms of parliament, a unicameral legislature, and an MMP electoral system.

I can't be faffed saying more, but FWIW, that's my legalistic view, and IMHO it corrects a number of misconceptions.

PS: I was smacked occasionally as a child, and it isn't my business how anyone else parents their children (unless they are abusing them). That said, I'm in favour of this Crimes Act ammendment.

Rant over.

Those that have another political agenda will fail to see by your post what Bradfords bill is really about; the removal of reasonable force as a defence for assualt of siblings.

Skyryder

[RT527]

The definition you linked to rightly says that the courts will not uphold minor breaches. This, and recent comments from the police, imply that the police will investigate & prosecute complaints [edit: what ixion said] and that the courts will decide if de minimis applies. Surely it isn't up to the cops to be judge, jury and executionsers. Cyfs will also no doubt poke their nose in. Which is a lot of hassle hanging over the heads of some great parents who get a complaint from busy body ms Maple next door.

Will the police press charges if I report the neighbours smacking their kids? If not, what kind of training and guidelines are being given to those officers?

So why make these people technically criminals (or whatever the term is for someone who does something illegal) in the first place when a simple clause could be added to say that a light smack won't be illegal (which is what sue and helen are now saying is ok).


Thats all irrespective of wether anyone believes smacking is ok or not. I do challenge any one who believes that no smacking is acceptable to detail how to deal with a kid who refuses to go to time out or to do what you tell them and cant be reasoned with. I think most supporters believe these kids are a myth.....but i'm happy to let you baby sit my nephew which will change your mind.

Wether the Courts up hold it or not , if its gotten to the Court stage its too late for the father/mother...cyfs will be notified wether you are charged or not, wether you go to court or not...if they are notified , and they will be you can expect your child to be removed from care and placed in care of the state or foster home, (which will cause more kids to be adversely affected than if they had got a corrective smack).

Ironically this bill of hers will backfire on her at some stage ...but by then it will be too late and Bradford wont care because she probably wont be in Parliament anymore...its more about her saying look at me and What i passed into law....

[crack]

Crack, I was correcting some common misconceptions that I am in the fortunate position to understand by dint of my chosen career.

What misconceptions?


10 European countries have moved to a similar legislative position. Is Europe going to the dogs??


Having spent some years working in the "Aluminium & Rivets Transportation Industry" through out Europe, and working with Europeans and Brits, they are equally concerned with the education Liberalisations, Parenting Laws, and the youth violence problems, just read the odd time magazine.


Emphasis added. Can you see the hypocrisy that might have made me highlight the emphasised passage?

Isn't Hypocrisy subjective?



Good. I'm sure your kids will turn out fine. But ask them in 20 years whether they remember any discipline events from their early childhood, and how they feel about those memories...you may be surprised by the answers. I remember my terror at around age 4, watching a friend down the road being chased with a belt by his grandfather. I remember that fear when I do not remember much else from that age. I don’t think that event had a positive impact on my friend or myself. It didn’t show anything other than grandad was bigger, and stronger than us kids – leaving a nasty memory for life.


There is a huge difference between a "SMACK" and correction done in "LOVE" and some worthless peice of shit that beats the shit out of their kids.


I’d be very interested which of those young offenders came from backgrounds containing ‘hidings’ or other physical discipline. I can’t answer this,


I was CANED at school for stuff I did not do, I felt Humiliated and I would gladly thrash the perpetrators even if they are 80 years of age.

As for my Mum and Dad, Dad never ever hit me, and he should have, Mum did, and we faired Mum more than Dad, but it was always the wooden spoon, or open palme of her hand on our rump.


Are you seriously telling me that you formed your opinion just from this thread? I’ll read through the entire thread, and see if there is any gold-plated, eloquent prose that sways me in favour of physical discipline of children. I’ll tell you if there is.


No doubt you are more EDUCATED than me, but I wonder if you have or ever will do or contribute as much as I have.


A self-selecting poll from within a small target demographic isn't worth the paper it's written on (Or the 1's and 0's of cyberspace that compose it). No statistical safeguards of accuracy = a worthless poll. I'm sorry, but democracy has nothing to do with the poll at the start of the thread.

Well then what do you call it, Shows that 70% think the proposals of Bradford are Shite, can't look at it any other way, Numbers are Numbers my friend.



Do you mean that people who disagree with you are dangerous?? I am no more dangerous than any other person in that my vote is worth the same as yours in this representative democracy.


I mean people such as you with your UNEMOTIONAL RATIONAL and POLITICALY CORRECT THINKING are DANGEROUS, we have as a society lossing very fast the EMOTION in our Speech.

You'd be happy if I judged you based on this mere, tiny glimpse of your beliefs and opinions?

Yes because I am what I say I am, nothing else, I have beliefs that I will die for, go to Jail for, do you?


Just as well you won't go to jail, and that I outlined the De Minimis approach to enforcing laws for you that means you’ll stay free as a bird. Phew, that’s a relief?! Hooray, everybody's happy

Others on here have contradicted you, as I have.


In your humble opinion of our representative democracy… You've done your bit by writing in, so you arguably have more right to this opinion than most.

Thank you Sir.

Good that you care. So do I.

Thank you again Sir.


Why thank you, take a bow for falling back to invective when a reasoned and polite argument fails you. Res ipsa locquitur. See, I wrote that whole post without resorting to nasty words and abuse once - you should try it sometime

Now you again prove that you and your kind have lost the EMOTION with speech, or writing of your beliefs, you think it ABUSE if I call you a F---Wit?
You are portraying yourself to me as one of societies soft cocks.
(means liberal)

Operor non existo an erudio fossor, Ignarus redimio nos per parcus dies erudio probus.

Qualis adversarius es vos?

[knight rider]

when I have kids & they're naughty too right I'm gonna smack em. I ain't gona beat em half to death or anything in that extreame. i think kids need to feel pain to realise it's wrong. it's better than them living a life of crime from not being punished. Just wait 15 years time crime rates will be up we will need more prisons more jobs to look after them...... well ok maybe thats a bit over the top.

They're my kids & I'm gonna bring them up the best way I can & if some f#@* head don't like that well thats 2 bad cause they ain't your kids & they ain't your responsability


just my 5c ohh woops have to round it up now 10c he he he

[knight rider]

when i was younger i got the jug cord, the belt, the broom handle you name it I got it. It brought out the best in me. Before I had left school I had a job, I never been on the dole I have worked hard all my life & never been without a job. I never had kids before my time.... I've never had any problems with police never even had a speeding tcket.... well not yet anyway . My mum was hard on me when i was young just one wrong move & *smack* my dad was always warning me first but I always tried his pateince & on the 3rd or 4th warning I would get a *smack* now I'm much older (26) I'm much more closer to my mum then I am with my dad. I felt mum punished me because she wanted me to be good & always be a good boy so from my experiance I feel *smacking* made me a better person. My brother who was not punished like I was has not had such a hassle free life as I have had

[MSTRS:Me]

Those that have another political agenda will fail to see by your post what Bradfords bill is really about; the removal of reasonable force as a defence for assualt of siblings.

Skyryder

As with all well-intentioned ideas, there is a (not unforeseen) downside...
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=46407

[Phurrball]

Unfortunately, Mr Phurrball, your position, though doubtless well intentioned, fails to recognise the practical realities of the situation.

Firstly, the principle de minimus, though valid in law, has no applicability to real world policing.

The Police Family Violence Policy is clear that ANY violence (and if Ms Bradford's Bill is passes, smacking will be violence), no matter how minor , will result in the arrest of any male implicated (women are very seldom arrested in family violence situatiuons, even when they are the violent ones).

Quote from the Police Family Violence Policy

19 Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family
violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested.
In the rare case where action other than arrest is contemplated, the
member's supervisor must be consulted.
Police Bail and Custody
20 Where an arrest has been made, the offender should be kept in
custody until the next available court hearing.



So, if Mrs Grundy sees Junior being givem a smack for being naughty and rushes to call the police, someone WILL be arrested and locked up .

Moreover, in such situations it is an invariable condition of bail that the bailee shall not associate with the "victim" ie dad won't be able to go back home.

This may seem stupid. And it is. but it is the inevitable reality.

Thank you for pointing out that policy, and the hypothetical situation to me Ixion - it would be wise for the police to ammend that policy in light of this Crimes Act ammendment. You are right that de minimis is applied after policy has been triggered, rather than before.

I have added emphasis to what I think points to an extant discretion, which I think would not lead to a low-grade smacker being arrested.

As I understand it, the police (if the prosecuting authority) or the crown solicitor have discretion whether or not to charge a person with an offence - you rightly point out the possible problem with mandatory arrest upon sufficient evidence, I have my doubts whether Mrs Grundy's evidence would clear that bar. Perhaps I am just hopelessly optimistic...

[Phurrball]

Now you again prove that you and your kind have lost the EMOTION with speech, or writing of your beliefs, you think it ABUSE if I call you a F---Wit?
You are portraying yourself to me as one of societies soft cocks.
(means liberal)

Operor non existo an erudio fossor, Ignarus redimio nos per parcus dies erudio probus.

Qualis adversarius es vos?

Would you prefer that the law started concerning itself with EMOTION, rather than being a dispassionate arbiter?

I am quite happy being socially liberal - my vote is worth the same as yours buddy, and I will exercise it according to my beliefs. Why is it that everyone that you disagree with is a soft cock or fcukwit? Do you think that calling someone those things is not abuse?

[jrandom]

Well I've just sprung one of my daughters (15) fucking her 18 year old boyfriend in the back of my car.

You did call the cops, right? The little shit needs this on his criminal record. There are good reasons for 'age of consent' laws.

I wouldn't hesitate for a minute.

[Ixion]

Thank you for pointing out that policy, and the hypothetical situation to me Ixion - it would be wise for the police to ammend that policy in light of this Crimes Act ammendment. You are right that de minimis is applied after policy has been triggered, rather than before.

I have added emphasis to what I think points to an extant discretion, which I think would not lead to a low-grade smacker being arrested.

As I understand it, the police (if the prosecuting authority) or the crown solicitor have discretion whether or not to charge a person with an offence - you rightly point out the possible problem with mandatory arrest upon sufficient evidence, I have my doubts whether Mrs Grundy's evidence would clear that bar. Perhaps I am just hopelessly optimistic...

Well, Mrs Grundy's statement would quite likely be supported by Junior . "Did Daddy (or Mummy as case may be) smack you ? Yes. Right".

Whether such an arrest would lead to a court case is doubtful. Judges (and even more, juries) tend to have some residuum of common sense. But that is not the problem. The problem is that, court case or no, Junior will have been whisked away by CYPS. Who do not need a conviction to act.

So, we have Dad locked up , at least overnight, maybe longer, and bailed on the condition that he does not return home. And Junior whisked away to a foster home. With a CYPS notation that he comes from a violent and abusive family.

That de minimums seems quite maximus to me.

EDIT: Incidenatlly the situation referred to in the highlighted text is not really a discretion, more of a rule of thumb. The police , faced with determining who is "right" and who is "wrong" in a domestic argument (admittedly a task taxing the wisdom of Solomon), have opted to make no attempt to determine who is the instigator, but instead will invariably arrest the male party. A policy that may perhaps be justified by practical necessity, but none the less conducive of much injustice.

[Phurrball]

That de minimums seems quite maximus to me.

I just don't believe it would pan out that way in fact - but we're both speaking in hypotheticals, so I could be wrong. Cheers for some well informed posts.