Smacking kids?

[crack]

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

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?

WHo cares I thought we both did:

Why is it that something so basic needs to be addressed, it is because the law has been contaminated by the new breed of politically correct modern day liberal
I bet you are under 40 years of age, Yes/No.

Why has the court lost the ability to determine what is reasonable force.

No person in their correct mind should allow the defence of reasonable force when a kid has been hit by an enraged parent with a 4x2, whip, jug cord, etc etc, surley we have always had the power to prosecute what is Assult to a child.

Mate I am 50, call me what you want but "ALL" of my friends and family around my age or older are lost by the modern liberalisations, and interpretations, we are frustrated when what was once common sense is fat becomming lost.

IE: the lady in the USA that Sued McDonalds after burning herself with hot coffee, because the cup did not have "CAUTION CONTENTS MAY BE HOT"
Who created these laws, certainly I gaurantee the law makers never thought that this law could be interpreted to allow such.

The Law is an ARSE, a arse.

Example:

We use to go to Motorcycle races and we would have on our ACU licence that the competitor realised and understood that motorcycle racing could be fatal, and was a dangerous sport.( Is it still on such a thing if it exists today)

We see now some poor sod down south ( RIP Brother) killed when he crashed his Quad bike, shit what he is not allowed to lose control, look on the TV we have the police swarming the track and measuring this and that, what does that cost.

On the flip side, one could think if he did not die, maybe he could be prosecuted for losing control, Shit !

I saw in the Aviation industry where we started to get corporate MISSION STATEMENTS, and CORE VALUES, what an unmittigated crock of shit, absolute shit.

We are worse off for it, and as employees we are weaker for it.


But it is I guess the likes of your generation that thinks they are doing something worthwhile, where as to my generation that are having to change it is shit, we are being dictated to by those more educated than ourselves, that have F---All experiance in a field they just do a degree in a particular field, then enter an industry and tell us how we should do our jobs and live our lives, and raise our kids.

Matey wake up, "please wake up".

I fucking well do.

[Squeak the Rat]

I bet you are under 40 years of age, Yes/No.
.....snip......
Mate I am 50, call me what you want but "ALL" of my friends and family around my age or older are lost by the modern liberalisations, and interpretations, we are frustrated when what was once common sense is fat becomming lost.

IE: the lady in the USA that Sued McDonalds after burning herself with hot coffee, because the cup did not have "CAUTION CONTENTS MAY BE HOT"
Who created these laws, certainly I gaurantee the law makers never thought that this law could be interpreted to allow such.
.......snip.......
But it is I guess the likes of your generation that thinks they are doing something worthwhile, where as to my generation that are having to change it is shit, we are being dictated to by those more educated than ourselves, that have F---All experiance in a field they just do a degree in a particular field, then enter an industry and tell us how we should do our jobs and live our lives, and raise our kids.

Bahahaha what a crock, who's generation is responsible for all these PC laws and "mission statements"? From my memory they were started happening back in the 80's if not before........... The McDonalds incident was in 1993. Today's under 40's wouldn't have been anywhere near involved in making or those laws or setting precedence.

[crack]

Bahahaha what a crock, who's generation is responsible for all these PC laws and "mission statements"? From my memory they were started happening back in the 80's if not before........... The McDonalds incident was in 1993. Today's under 40's wouldn't have been anywhere near involved in making or those laws or setting precedence.

As I said "Example" do we want to go there, we are 10-15 yrs behind good old uncle sam.

As for the under 40, I am refering to the way of thinking.

[crack]

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.

One one hand you say something and make a statement, then Ixion states something else to correct you, and you conceed, now you talk about hypotheticals:
When it doesn't work as you think we get stuck with it.

[Squeak the Rat]

One one hand you say something and make a statement, then Ixion states something else to correct you, and you conceed, now you talk about hypotheticals:
When it doesn't work as you think we get stuck with it.

That's how the legal system works when an ambiguous new law is passed. It gets tested against other laws and case histories and the court needs to decide on how to interpret it. This system has been in place for ages. It's interesting stuff, and there are good reasons why it is not clear cut black and white all the time.

So should you be blaming the lawyers, or the people who make the laws (like Sue Bradford, age 55)?

[Phurrball]

Quick reply:

Crack, yes, I'm under 40, I'm 28.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of legislators, and judges (Shaping statute and common law respectively) would be between 45-60.

Nice intergenerational inequity going on between that generation and mine too - student loan millstones round our necks, and a property market we've not got a shit-show in.

How the fuck are we even supposed to become parents when the only way to get a house is for both partners to work? That is a more pressing concern for current children than any anti-smacking bill - parents can't even be around to spend time with their kids FFS - no matter how they decide to discipline them!!!!!

Ixion and I were having a cool-headed, reasoned discussion - I'm not scared to be wrong, and Ixion is a clever fella with more life experience and general knowings about the world than my meagre 28 years on the planet allow me to accumulate - he mas made many salient points, some of which I was unaware of, or hadn't thought of. I value that sort of contribution to the discussion over the hot-headed empty rhetoric you seem to employ.

You seem to have no idea of the woeful litany of cases where patent abuse has been found to be acceptable - that's a necessary consequence of s59 as it stands. My ex did a dissertation on child manslaughter, and I was horrified at the number of cases where beating with all sorts of implements were deemed reasonable force. The Borrows ammendment wouldn't have helped matters. We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

I agree that the law is an ass (With apolgies to Hitcher and BDOTGNZA), but can you show me a donkey that will get us there another way? The inquisitorial system that anti-smacking Europe has?? As it is, our common law is becoming increasingly 'civilised' (excuse the pun *cough*, actually, I mean codified...)

Ah fekkit, I can't be faffed going on - you don't seem willing to listen and contribute in a constructive way. I agree to disagree vehermently with you.

Oh, and just so you hate me more, if you hadn't already guessed, I'm a final year law student...ooh, I can smell the bile from here...

[candor]

Crack,

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

But don't those Euro countries have a provision for light smacking thrown in to guarantee an open hand on leg or butt is still ok? I was told they do.

If so then our legislation will be the crappiest in the world all and all because of one extremist (possibly the lowest IQ pollie ever) supported by the mad childs commissioner and some idealists with no reality compass.

[crack]

Quick reply:

Crack, yes, I'm under 40, I'm 28.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of legislators, and judges (Shaping statute and common law respectively) would be between 45-60.

Nice intergenerational inequity going on between that generation and mine too - student loan millstones round our necks, and a property market we've not got a shit-show in.

How the fuck are we even supposed to become parents when the only way to get a house is for both partners to work? That is a more pressing concern for current children than any anti-smacking bill - parents can't even be around to spend time with their kids FFS - no matter how they decide to discipline them!!!!!

You seem to have no idea of the woeful litany of cases where patent abuse has been found to be acceptable -

I agree that the law is an ass

Ah fekkit, I can't be faffed going on - you don't seem willing to listen .

Oh, and just so you hate me more, if you hadn't already guessed, I'm a final year law student...ooh, I can smell the bile from here...

Matey lets get one thing straight, I DO NOT HATE YOU.

Take a bit of time and have a look at my postings, all of them, then get back to me.

You are correct with the ages of Judges etc etc, the reference to your age is and was noyt derogatory, mearly as a reference to a changing system that is LETTING PEOPLE SUCH AS YOUR SELF DOWN WOEFULLY.

Now if the law stated an open hand, or an approved WOODEN SPOON?
IE under age "one" no smacking at all,
Age 1-3 a single light tap on the top of the hand.
Age 3-5 a maximum of TWO UNBRUISABLE strikes, with a wooden spoon on the Buttocks, or backs of the legs:
Age 5-12 a Maximum of FOUR UNBRUISABLE ----as above.

Why does a LAWYER defend a parent under the reasonable force law,when they have clearly demonstrated it is assult, or murder, attempted murder, what ever.

Answer me this.

NO MATEY I DO NOT HATE YOU, READ MY POSTINGS:

I learnt to fly in the 70's, I held down a job, I worked bars (Under age) at nights, I did my studies by correspondance:

I hold Airline Transport Pilot licences for 5 different countries:
my age is 50 (feel 99) and I never had a student loan.
My mates son is 25, has a fresh Commercial Licence and Instrument rating, has all his Airline Transport Pilot subject passes, is working part time as a C category Instructor, driving a Truck durring the day, owes the Govt $116K
His girl friend is a final year Vet student, and Owes $ 85K.

Now I think we are more in agreement than we think, but a word of advice my young learned and smarter than me FRIEND, if you are PASSIONATE about the LAW, BE THE BEST FUCKING LAWYER IN YOUR FIELD, USE YOUR EMOTION,HOLD ONTO YOUR HUMANITY, NEVER EVER RISE ABOVE IT, AND DONT BE AFFRAID TO USE CHOSEN EMOTION:

Subsisto verus ut vestri.

We obviously do!

[Phurrball]

You are correct with the ages of Judges etc etc, the reference to your age is and was noyt derogatory, mearly as a reference to a changing system that is LETTING PEOPLE SUCH AS YOUR SELF DOWN WOEFULLY.

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Now if the law stated an open hand, or an approved WOODEN SPOON?
IE under age "one" no smacking at all,
Age 1-3 a single light tap on the top of the hand.
Age 3-5 a maximum of TWO UNBRUISABLE strikes, with a wooden spoon on the Buttocks, or backs of the legs:
Age 5-12 a Maximum of FOUR UNBRUISABLE ----as above.

Unfortunately any allowable force in a statutory provision leaves statutory interpretation arguments open. Trust me, it does. I think most people would be shocked by the shades of grey in the law - even in statutes! After all, it has all the inherent problems of language (Ah, jurisprudence...) I believe that the best way is that proposed - ie repeal s59 of the Crimes Act - and have that as a quasi-aspirational goal, by having a de minimis approach to enforcement. Ixion has astutely pointed out potential problems here, and it will be interesting to see how it pans out in the end.

Why does a LAWYER defend a parent under the reasonable force law,when they have clearly demonstrated it is assult, or murder, attempted murder, what ever. Answer me this.

You've hit the nail on teh head with regards to the problem in the current law. The duty of zealous advocacy is the answer to the question you pose (With an overlay as an officer of the court to avoid dishonesty and disclose all that you must). We all get to do legal ethics (I can hear the guffaws at the preceding oxymoronic statment), thanks to those clowns at Renshaw Edwards.

You'd be pretty pissed if you hired a lawyer, and they didn't put forward the best case they were able to. Lawyers will stop you if you're about to open your mouth and tell them something they don't want to know (Like - I did it) Lawyers don't like getting the guilty off...although some propaby see high-level criminal advocacy as a high-stakes game to a certain extent due to the adversarial common law system we possess.

Now I think we are more in agreement than we think, but a word of advice my young learned and smarter than me FRIEND, if you are PASSIONATE about the LAW, BE THE BEST FUCKING LAWYER IN YOUR FIELD, USE YOUR EMOTION,HOLD ONTO YOUR HUMANITY, NEVER EVER RISE ABOVE IT, AND DONT BE AFFRAID TO USE CHOSEN EMOTION:

Subsisto verus ut vestri.

We obviously do!

I wasn't quite correct in saying that emotion doesn't have a place at all - it does in Jurisprudence (Philosophy of law), in pleas in mitigation/aggravation etc, but it's place is narrow. I won't be practising in the criminal field.

Thanks for cooling the discussion and making some valid points.

[crack]

EXAMPLE:

I use to help out at a primary school, helping kids to develope reading skills, IE the poorer readers.

One day I hear this lady teacher QUOTE: "STEVIE PLEASE DO NOT DO THAT, IT IS NOT NICE"

This was a controlled, slightly raised voice, but well in control, and certainly enough for a "NORMAL" child to understand to stop what they where doing.

The REPLY form a 6-7 year old>

YOU FUCKING OLD CUNT, DONT YOU TELL ME WHAT TO DO, I HATE THIS FUCKING SCHOOL I HATE YOU YOU FUCKING OLD CUNT YOU BITCH-------- form a room full of kids, The teacher Stevie come with me please, NO, Bang crash, -------- Swearing -------- more swearing, she had to grab him and take him outside.

Now as I witnessed this, the force required by her was considerable, this brings inot Q excessive force?????

The teacher had no means with which to deal to this little shit, and he went off in front of a bunch of well behaved kids.

This little shit is going to be one of our future citizens????.

Matey we have to do better, there has to be some other way, even a Lioness uses reasonable force to discipline her cubs, Elephants, Monkeys, etc etc, they all use reasonable force.

Now if Nature does it, and Humans have done it since time, what they are proposing goes against nature, and what is natural.

We don't have to discipline "our" kids anymore, they are good little humans.

I understand more from reading your thread, and I thank you for the insight, but there has to be a basic uncontestable law, something, that is not going to bring the police into our home if I need to discipline my kids, and I pray that we do not have to.

[Phurrball]

EXAMPLE: *snip*
I understand more from reading your thread, and I thank you for the insight, but there has to be a basic uncontestable law, something, that is not going to bring the police into our home if I need to discipline my kids, and I pray that we do not have to.

We're on the same page there - I would be unhappy if parents were criminalised (or even detained or investigated in any more than a cursory way) for a very low level of physical force used against a child.

I would hope that as a society we could aspire towards correction of children without force - rather like aspirational human rights doctrines - there is an implicit recognition that the world is not an easy place and is full of shades of grey, but that regardless, that is the level we shold be striving for.

Most parents aren't experts - the blighters don't come with instructions fekkit! But academic research does point to ways that children can be raised effectively without physical force.

I am not the person to ask about that, my partner is interested in child education, development and psychology, and knows a power more than I do in that field. I have tried to get her on KB in her own right (she's more of a firebrand than I am).

I appreciate what you're saying re the animal example, but humans are different in that we have the power to reason (Opposable thumbs and walking upright also help a tad...). [Don't get me started on the way humans relate to animals - that's a whole other debate where the stinking hippie in me comes out!!]

I also hear where you're coming from with the example of the little shit at primary school - it's unavoidable that force is needed to remove the child from the classroom - but that force is not applied by way of punishment or correction, and the subsequent application of punishment or correction can be done without force. It can be done without force - education is required, but I believe it can be done. We've got a long way to go to get to that ideal, but repealing s59 is the first step in the equation IMHO.

Sadly, there is no such thing as an uncontestable law (we don't have a written constitution, and even if we did, there is always interpretation possible) The more you learn, the more indistinguishable the shades of grey.

Right, that's quite enough from me.

[Albino]

It is the parents duty imho to teach their children that there are boundaries to what they can get away with. Most kids these days do not seem to have any understanding of boundaries at all.

I'm all for a decent whack to be administered to kids, not in anger but as punishment.

I would love it if Sues bill created a backlash of support for bringing back corporal punishment.

[Albino]

Ooops double post.

[MSTRS:Me]

It is the parents duty imho to teach their children that there are boundaries to what they can get away with. Most kids these days do not seem to have any understanding of boundaries at all.

I'm all for a decent whack to be administered to kids, not in anger but as punishment.

I would love it if Sues bill created a backlash of support for bringing back corporal punishment.

Ooops double post.

T'were worth it just for that suggestion

[slowpoke]

This whole situation is just...just....SURREAL.
How the hell did we arrive at this point? It all just seems bizarre beyond belief that with all the obvious problems and deficiencies in both NZ and throughout the world that so much time, effort and energy is put into such a head in the sand band aid solution.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Which is the greater crime: striking someone or depriving them of liberty? (assault or kidnapping) for without the former we have no choice but to use the latter.

2) It's NOT ok to physically discipline our kids but it IS ok to kill thousands of people when the world's most powerful (economically, militarily, sociologically) country violently invades another country and hang someone as punishment (with the the action endorsed by many other countries). So, how do we reconcile these state sanctioned actions which are at opposingly extreme ends of the violence scale?

Admittedly NZ was not the state doing the invading, but the country(s) in question are definitely classed as our "friends" so their actions can't have been TOO offensive.

In this media age it just seems ludicrous to preach the "violence is not the answer" sermon when we are bombarded with TV, internet, newspapers, movies etc etc that show that it most definitely IS the answer. Sue Bradford is attempting to plug an infinitesmal hole in the dike as the rest of the dike is crumbling around her. In an ideal world I think what she is saying is probably true and correct: it should be illegal to hit kids.....but this world is far from ideal and until it is there are are far more important and effective ways for our pollies to spend their/our time.

Which brings me to another point: why is this even on the agenda? At every workplace I've ever had the dubious pleasure of chasing the elusive "increase in productivity" there has been a planned set of priorities. You know, all those maintenance, modification, HSE or debottlenecking (only an engineer could come up with that word...) issues that are sorted into order of importance usually based on investment versus return. So why doesn't parliament run the same way? Is this really the most pressing matter for consideration? The health, education, telecommunication, law enforcement, transport dramas etc affect huge numbers of the population on a daily basis with issues that need to be addressed NOW. Instead Christ knows how much time is being wasted on an issue that affects only a minute number of parents who, in the heat of the moment, are going to disregard it anyway.