Smacking kids?

[Skyryder]

There will always be cracks in the system. No legislation will stop anything completly. At best it might reduce a problem. Bradford's bill will not stop seriouse abuse and 'seriouse abusers' can not hide behind section 59 of the Crimes Act. Bradford's bill is the result of juries unable to agree as to what constitutes reasonable force. When a child is 'smacked' by a piece of 4x2 that leaves bruising and a jury believes that this is reasonable force then what does that say about NZ society? It seems to me that the hostility against Bradford and her bill is that she is right and the majority of kiwi's don't like that.

Skyryder

[oldrider]

When we (me and my siblings) were kids we got really thrashed by our old man with a piece of rubber conveyor belt.

He (as did people of that time) believed in the adage, "Spare the rod and spoil the child".

As I was considered to be a "difficult" child I received more than my share of anti spoiling treatment.

So much so that on one occasion I took my brother's CMT 303 service rifle, loaded it, hid in a wardrobe and threatened to shoot my father if he came near me again.(and I would have done it)

Obviously that did not happen and things took a change following that event.

I would gladly turn that gun on anyone who tried to interfere with my fathers rights and attempts to bring us up the way he saw fit because I would rather live my life as a result of his mistakes than have to live my life as a result of the mistakes of any phony interfering government advocate like Sue Bradford or Helen Clark.

The children do not belong to the state, the state belongs to the children but socialists and communists just can't get that through their thick heads.

My father was a good father who was influenced by the trends of the times and now that we have escaped those influences (Christian) I for one do not want to see them replaced by another (the state) such as Bradford and Clark are trying to do.

I did not nor did my wife ever beat our children but we did discipline them when the need arose and they (the children) bare witness today that there is no need or no place for the "State" in the privacy of the home unless a crime is committed and there "is" adequate legislation in place covering that now.

What is missing today is an adequate suitably equipped and manned Police force to carry out the task of policing the laws that we have already.

Full praise to the police for the work they do under such difficult conditions when all the "good work" they do gets undermined by piss weak judicial, corrections and social services!

Clark and her power mad dictatorial cronies should focus on governing for the people by the people or step aside and have new election for representatives that can.

There are so many urgent and "real" issues for government to be concentrating on without wasting time money and energy on this anti-smacking rubbish just so Clark can stay in power with the "Green vote" by supporting this bill!

I agree with not smacking but this legislation is not required to get that across, education and good leadership is, I don't see any in parliament right now from this government and their pathetic state control cronies.

Time to cut the crap and get real before every last vestage of freedom is lost forever.

Nanny state knows best! yeah right! John.

[Skyryder]

Clark and her power mad dictatorial cronies should focus on governing for the people by the people or step aside and have new election for representatives that can.

There are so many urgent and "real" issues for government to be concentrating on without wasting time money and energy on this anti-smacking rubbish just so Clark can stay in power with the "Green vote" by supporting this bill!

I agree with not smacking but this legislation is not required to get that across, education and good leadership is, I don't see any in parliament right now from this government and their pathetic state control cronies.

Time to cut the crap and get real before every last vestage of freedom is lost forever.

Nanny state knows best! yeah right! John.

Proposed replacement o f
sec t i on 59
59 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 --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child
or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or
continuing to engage in conduct that amounts
to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or
continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive
behaviour; or
(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).


This has nothing to do with the nanny state, power mad politicians, communists, socialists etc.

It is about children who can not defend themselves agaist parents who abuse their responsibilities. Perhaps if as a society we were to convict those parents who take a piece of 4x2 and 'smack' their kids with it, this sort of legislation would not be neccessary. Unfortunately as a society we do not seem capable of that. Instead the Christian Right see this as a direct attack on their God given right to 'smack' their children in any manner that they see fit. They have conned NZ into beliveing that good prarental control requires smacking. It does not.

Skyryder

[candor]

It is not the Judge who decided what was reasonable force but the Jury. If you can not understand the fundamental differences between the roles of judge and jury it is not surprising that you have such a bad attitude towards them.

And incidently it is precisely because 'socieity' can not protect children from abusive parents that Bradford's bill is necessary. She has never claimed that her bill will stop violence but at least the perpertrators of violence agaist their children will not get away with it so easily as they have in the past.

Skyryder

Can't agree with you that the perps will not get away with it so easily as in the past. Not without knowing who got away with what in the past.

They have failed to sell this bill as they have not 'shared' whats broke in a concrete way. I follow medisa reasonably closely and am not aware of hearing about one case of somneone 'getting away with it' (kid bashing) on a technicality like 'reasonable force'.

And also... what I understand of the current system is that people can elect to just go before a Judge or to go before a jury.

The anti smcking brigade would win my ear a lot more if they would actually tell us about any / all these cases of 4x2 use in which the offender is getting off on 'reasonable force' defence. Do they exist these cases or are they mythic.

Dates, details, barbaric community location and Judges names please.

And yes. if it is a jury trial most blame must still go on the Judge if they jury getsit wrong. As the Judge doctors the whole trial by deciding how to slant things via inclusion or excluision of evidence. he Judge also guides and advises the jury in his/ her summing up.

The Judge is a HUGE influence on the verdict as referee and if you don't think so I think maybe it is you who does not understand the legal system well.

[Skyryder]

Can't agree with you that the perps will not get away with it so easily as in the past. Not without knowing who got away with what in the past.

They have failed to sell this bill as they have not 'shared' whats broke in a concrete way. I follow medisa reasonably closely and am not aware of hearing about one case of somneone 'getting away with it' (kid bashing) on a technicality like 'reasonable force'.

And also... what I understand of the current system is that people can elect to just go before a Judge or to go before a jury.

The anti smcking brigade would win my ear a lot more if they would actually tell us about any / all these cases of 4x2 use in which the offender is getting off on 'reasonable force' defence. Do they exist these cases or are they mythic.

Dates, details, barbaric community location and Judges names please.

And yes. if it is a jury trial most blame must still go on the Judge if they jury getsit wrong. As the Judge doctors the whole trial by deciding how to slant things via inclusion or excluision of evidence. he Judge also guides and advises the jury in his/ her summing up.

The Judge is a HUGE influence on the verdict as referee and if you don't think so I think maybe it is you who does not understand the legal system well.

http://www.youthlaw.co.nz/default.aspx?_z=128


I've been following this thread with some interest. At least there is one here who knows and it's not you Candor

[oldrider]

http://www.youthlaw.co.nz/default.aspx?_z=128


I've been following this thread with some interest. At least there is one here who knows and it's not you Candor

Section 59 with clear definition of "Reasonable force" is all that's required!

The only real argument here is what is reasonable force, currently so many men so many opinions, take your pick.

The proposed bill will only continue that argument with even worse consequences.(IMHO)

I am not for unnecessary smacking and I am not for stupid unnecessary legislation, especially those that probably cant be policed effectively either. John.

[Quartermile]

Here is a link to a properly organised ballot/petition. You may vote either way, and will be resented to government once 100,000 votes registered or something like that anyway.
So far it is 90% No and 10% yes, to supporting Sue Bradfords Anti-Smacking Bill.

LINK

Haha, done

[Indiana_Jones]

wtf is going on with this bill?, aint seen nothing in the news.

-Indy

[oldrider]

Don't usually dally with petitions but this one is just too much to ignore!

Voted "NO" and sent it on to friends and relatives.

Problem is not with current law, problem is with:

Policing, Judiciary, Corrections and Social Services, if these were made to operate correctly the current laws would suffice.

If these services are unable to cope with the current legislation, they will never ever hope to cope with what Bradford's bill will produce! (IMHO) John.

[kro]

Instead the Christian Right see this as a direct attack on their God given right to 'smack' their children in any manner that they see fit. They have conned NZ into beliveing that good prarental control requires smacking. It does not.

Whose rights need to be considered first?. If you put the childrens "right" not to be smacked before the parents "right" to discipline their children, then you have the tail wagging the dog. This is a doctor Phil quote, and sums it nicely.

Oh, and Sky, how bout stopping with the "thrashing with a 4x2" comments, noone here condones that sort of carry on, we are talking slap across the back of the hand/bottom with a hand only, and its annoying every time you use that gross exaggeration.

[MSTRS:Me]

It's not over yet....

[Skyryder]

Whose rights need to be considered first?. If you put the childrens "right" not to be smacked before the parents "right" to discipline their children, then you have the tail wagging the dog. This is a doctor Phil quote, and sums it nicely.

Oh, and Sky, how bout stopping with the "thrashing with a 4x2" comments, noone here condones that sort of carry on, we are talking slap across the back of the hand/bottom with a hand only, and its annoying every time you use that gross exaggeration.

Criminal Acquittals

In contrast to the above examples of convictions where section 59 was raised unsuccessfully, there are a number of media reports of jury trials where the defendant was acquitted in circumstances where significant force was used. Indeed, all the below examples regard incidents where the punishment was carries out using an implement.



* A jury in the High Court at Palmerston North acquitted a man accused of chaining his “wayward” 14-year old step-daughter to himself, from charges of kidnapping and cruelty[47]. It was reported that the defendant’s counsel (a QC) successfully utilized a defence of “tough love” without having to call evidence, stating “the important thing about that chain is this: she was not chained to a wall, she was chained to a human being and that human being was prepared to go with her.”
* A jury in the North Shore District Court acquitted an Auckland man of assault after he took a belt to his stepchild, who suffers from severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as punishment for continually running on to the road[48]. The father claimed it was the only way of preventing this behaviour. Conversely, it was reported that a psychologist told the Court that a child with ADHD “should never be subjected to physical violence”. The acquittal occurred as a result of a retrial ordered by the Court of Appeal following appeal from the original conviction by jury in the District Court. The report notes the father’s lawyer as stating that she explained to the jury that the matter was one of “spare the rod and spoil the child”. The lawyer also commented to the reporter that the verdict was a rebuke for the view advocating repeal, stating “this was a resounding ‘no, get lost’ by the jury”.
* A jury in the Hamilton District Court acquitted a Ngaruawahia man who struck his 12-year-old daughter with a hosepipe, finding that the force was reasonable per section 59[49]. Police photos showed that the assault left the girl with a raised 15 cm lump across her back. This verdict was strongly criticised by the Commissioner for Children, Roger McLay, who also advocated repeal of the defence saying children should have the same protection under the law as adults. He further stated “if he had hit his wife in the same way, it undoubtedly would have been an assault.” In contrast, the successful defendant stated “ I think it proves that the public supports parents’ rights to discipline their children.”
* A jury in the Napier District Court acquitted a man from a charge of assault for an incident where the man struck his son several times on the buttocks with a piece of wood, finding that the force was reasonable under section 59[50]. A paediatrician stated that the injuries the boy received must have been caused by “considerable force”. This case resulted in the Paediatric Society calling for a law change.[51]
* Other instances include a judge acquitting a man under section 59 in the Christchurch District Court for hitting his daughter with a doubled-over belt[52] and a Napier District Court jury being unable to make a finding regarding an incident where it was alleged a man assaulted his son with a stick[53].

Where's the gross exaggertion??

Skyryder

[kro]

We won't see eye to eye on this dude. To me these are two polar opposites, I am talking about discipline, you are talking about criminal abuse/assault.
I do not condone cruel, or sadistic anything, but I do defend my ability to be able to discipline my children effectively.

See, the problem as I see it is, we legislate to the minority cases every single time, and in the process we handicap the non offending majority, who end up being disadvantaged by the minoritys shitty behaviour, or lack of self control.

This is one of my pet hates, it's knee jerk legislation. The root cause of the issue that Bradford is trying to address is actually domestic violence. Why isn't this being addressed as exactly that?. I don't call a beating with a jug cord, or a length of tee tree branch "smacking", I call it domestic violence, as does everyone I know, so why is this being addressed througha "smacking" bill?

We are instead trying to address the problem by condemning all forms of physical punishment. Once again, the minority fucks it up for the rest of us, who aren't violent, abusive, sadistic wankers, but concerned loving parents.

[Skyryder]

Nowhere in Bradford's bill does she prohibit smacking other than for corrective purposes. Children's behavour can be corrected without having to resort to violence, smacking or other painful measures. (personal experiance) Call it what you will but any kind of action that inflicts pain is violence. This has nothing to do minorities bringing the rest of us 'down' to their level or any other level for that matter.

The simple fact of the matter is that society (juries) can not determine what is reasonable force and what is not. That Kro is the crux of the problem and becasue of it violence is continuing to be inflicted upon them.

Now you and I may agree to disagree, that the examples that I posted on acquittals’ are excessive (domestic violence??) but each of the juries believed that the parent had used reasonable force and aquitted them on that basis.

So reasonable force becomes subjective and the result of this is that some children are being subject to a level of violence that if inflicted on you or I would constitute assault. I think this needs to be addressed by the opponents of Bradford's bill; in that this does not constitute assault if committed on ones own children and defenceless children at that. I find that more than disturbing given the fact that so many parents etc see this as acceptable.

Somewhere in this tread I have posted the wording of Bradford's change to section 59. Take a good hard look at it. I meant a hard, hard look with an open mind. It does not prevent smacking as many opponents of the bill falsely maintain. It's not perfect. No legislation is. And it will not prevent seriouse abuse. But in the fullness of time I am sure that it too (Bradford's ammendment) will come under scrutny of the courts.............and rightly so in my opinion............for other reasons that do not come under the scope of this thread.

The opponets of Bradfords's bill need to understand that those parents who inflict injury on their children will no longer have the defence of reasonable force to 'hide' behind.

Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

....
The simple fact of the matter is that society (juries) can not determine what is reasonable force and what is not. .... Amazing what a clever lawyer can achieve

So reasonable force becomes subjective and the result of this is that some children are being subject to a level of violence that if inflicted on you or I would constitute assault. A simple touch on the shoulder (if unwanted) constitutes assault. No force is needed, to satisfy the law


... It's not perfect. No legislation is. And it will not prevent serious abuse. But in the fullness of time I am sure that it too (Bradford's amendment) will come under scrutiny of the courts.............and rightly so in my opinion............for other reasons that do not come under the scope of this thread. Courts do not set law, only interpret.

The big (and only) problem is that Bradford seeks to remove a part of law, without replacing it with something clearer/more workable. In fact, she will withdraw her action if anyone manages to insert a qualifier.