Hard News: Human Space Invaders
46 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Ron you asked
Bart wrote: "currently the police say (using very careful language because they don't want to lose their jobs) they simply don't bother trying to prosecute anything but the most disgusting cases of abuse".
I'm not sure what you base that comment on unless of course you regard smacking as child abuse. I imagine that police try to prosecute all cases of child abuse, as long as there is sufficient evidence.No the police don't try to prosecute all cases of child abuse - that is the whole point of this law change. To allow them to do precisely that.
I am talking about the situations where parents have hit their children in situations where the parent could claim the blow was for discipline. These occassionally get reported in the newspapers especially when the child ends up in hospital. Note I'm not using the word smack quite deliberately. For example a blow with a fist, a kick with a boot etc. These cases are not typically prosecuted because they are likely to fail because of the section 59 defence.
The police can and do refer the cases do CYFs and that sometimes works. What this law change would allow is prosecution when for whatever reason CYFs cannot intervene.
Fletcher asked
If it really was designed to only stop abuse (or, make it prosecutable), why the increadibly strong reluctance to define anything as reasonaable or non-criminal?
Because that essentially demands that the court defines the legal definition. That isn't the courts job. And the result of such a law would be very expensive test cases that would almost certainly go to the highest courts before being sorted out - at huge expense. The reason the amendment will fail is because it is bad law - as bad as the original section 59 (which BTW was never intended to provide the protection it does now).
Laws have to be crytsal clear otherwise you just make more money for lawyers.
Cheers
Bart -
"These cases are not typically prosecuted because they are likely to fail because of the section 59 defence."
You know, I've heard that claim (and read a couple of shocking examples of such cases) numerous times in the past few weeks. So what do you make of this?
I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that - unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59.
I drafted an indictment against a man who was convicted of smacking his 4-year-old son about five times on the backside with an open hand, leaving marks.
I think the jury convicted because the man smacked his boy too hard and because the boy was smacked not for a deliberate misdemeanour but because he soiled himself.
-
In an effort to get away from the topic
Thanks Leo, I just loved the space invaders clip. I can't help but think of how hard it must have been to make, I mean getting students to sit in the right place in the lecture theatre????
cheers
Bart -
If it really was designed to only stop abuse (or, make it prosecutable), why the increadibly strong reluctance to define anything as reasonaable or non-criminal?
I would presume, that abuse is already reasonably well defined legally, particularly by case law.
The problem with section 59 (or, one of them) is that people have been getting away with abuse by using the section 59 defense. If it's been getting people off that clearly should have been convicted, then there's a problem.
Also, no where else in laws to do with assault do we say "you can't assault people, except for...". This lack of exceptions isn't a problem with assaults between adults that I'm aware of. I don't think it'll be a problem between parents and children to have the same system.
So what do you make of this?
The experience of one lawyer, prosecuting or defending, doesn't apply across the board.
As for her arguments that 'every reported smack will be investigated'. Currently smacking children is illegal. It's assault.
If this bill goes through, smacking children will still be illegal, and still assault. Are people going to report every smack to the police? Are the police going to wander around looking for smacking? No and no.
The law on assaulting your children is not changing. So currently if you see someone smack their child, it would be ethical to report that assault to the police. Almost no one does that now, and I can't imagine that everyone is going to rush forward and do it afterwards.
Yes there will be more investigations as a proportion of actual smacks out there - maybe it'll double from 1% to 2%. There will also be, I think, less smacking as people develop alternative parenting skills. I don't have a problem with the first, because I don't believe it will be over the top. The second sounds great to me.
-
ron,
Rodgerd: "I'm not allowed to wander about my workplace swiping my colleagues' arses".
One would hope that you wouldn't need to, though why you compare a 2 yeard old child with your colleague is beyond me. You probably don't spoon feed your colleague or tell him he must be in bed by 7.30 either. Enough said.
"So hitting children improves their behaviour.."
Well, there's a fair bit of research to show that smacking can change kids' behaviour, apparently for the better. I'm not sure about hitting though. Of course, smacking is just one tool - some of the anti smackers seem to think it is the ONLY tool.
"Irrelevant because... you say so? So we shouldn't look at other countries and ask how we measure up and see what we might learn from them? Simply announce that our world-leading rates of child abuse are nothing to worry about and do nothing?"
Well, I agree we can learn from other countries...if we want to. For example, several countries which permit smacking have the lowest rates of child deaths in the Western world, as low or lower than the often-quoted Sweden. Maybe there is absolutely no relationship between a ban on smacking and low rates of child abuse?
You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating child abuse with smacking. I thought we'd moved well beyond that.
-
ron,
From Stuff earlier today:
Police have told a Feilding mum that if she is caught lightly smacking her children after Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, she will be reported to the Child Youth and Family Service (CYFS).
"CYFS seems to have so much power," said mother-of-eight Sandra Elliott.
She fears CYFS will treat parents who smack their children as child abusers.
Green MP Sue Bradford is promoting a bill in Parliament that will remove "reasonable force" for correcting children as a possible defence for assault.
Mrs Elliott rang Feilding police to clarify the effects of the bill.
She says she asked: "If I lightly smacked my three-year-old for correction and my neighbour saw it and called police - would you have to come out and investigate?"
The answer was yes.
Police national headquarters confirmed this for the Manawatu Standard, but added the call would be prioritised, as all police calls are. It would come under the category of domestic violence.
Mrs Elliott then asked if police would pass on the information to CYFS. The answer again was yes.
She was told that if police believed the child was in no immediate danger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fortnightly about family violence and that's when information would be passed on, Mrs Elliott said.
"That's the bit that scared me - having CYFS on your doorstep," Mrs Elliott said.
"I've got nice neighbours, but not everyone does.
"A light smack for correction is not abuse," she added.
Police national headquarters spokesman Jon Neilson said there is a notification process that involves CYFS, but its involvement could depend on the seriousness of the incident.
He said it would be "difficult to say, categorically" if CYFS would be notified after a child is lightly smacked. Whether a child was frequently hit in the past would also be a relevant factor.
However, Police Association president Greg O'Connor said reported assaults on children would "almost invariably" end up with CYFS.
"If a parent admits to smacking a child, that's clearly an offence. Even if a warning is administered, it will still be reported," he said.
Under the existing police policy, reporting the alleged assaults would be "basically mandatory".
Supporters of the bill argue smacking is already technically illegal. Removing S.59 will stop people from getting away with it.
Opponents argue the bill will criminalise loving parents and the state should not interfere.
"Our concern is that the political debate is taking place in a vacuum of understanding about what action police are likely to take on receipt of a complaint of assault," Mr O'Connor said.
"Police are not going to go around looking for it," he added.
Using their discretion not to report assaults could backfire on police, however.
"The first time a child is seriously hurt or worse following police inaction, I imagine there will be very strong policy about what police should do."
-
there's a fair bit of research to show that smacking can change kids' behaviour, apparently for the better
hmm, from the Maxim Institute right?
I thought we'd moved well beyond that
Well I can't imagine why anyone would get the feeling we're relitigating the same old arguments and misinformation done to death in all the other PA threads.
From Stuff earlier today
The Police have always been obliged to investigate such complaints. Whether they subsequently find the case warrants further attention by way of charges is another story, they are not obliged to do so, they make a judgement based on the allegation's merits. Same before the bill, same after the bill.
-
WH,
I really don't like John Armstrong's political writing, but I am struggling to understand why (even if you oppose smacking) that you would want to pass Bradford's bill in the face of such overwhelming opposition.
Without rehashing the arguments for and against, this is a debate that the bill's supporters have decisively lost. This Act of electoral suicide needs to be stopped before any more damage is done to causes that actually matter.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10431744
National's polling is apparently registering a voter exodus from Labour of astonishing proportions - so astonishing National is querying whether its figures are right.
For God's sake, just pass the Burrows amendment. Can't anyone see they're all the same look? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Sue Bradford is a dick. Fact.
-
Sue Bradford is a dick. Fact.
Actually, Weston, that would be an opinion.
-
WH,
Actually, Weston, that would be an opinion.
Some quick research has uncovered that Sue Bradford may, in fact, not be "a dick". She is a real person with thoughts and feelings that are entitled to respect.
I regret any hurt or confusion my comments may have caused.
-
Could we all just pause in our prosletysing and watch this video that Lynley Hood so kindly provided a link to? Far be it from me to tell people how to raise their kids, but I've said it before, and I'll say it again - life is about connection, and as a teacher, I can change one child's disruptive behaviour quicker with lots of hugs and kindness than I could by yelling and being all standover about it. Now would ya just watch the video!!!!
-
-
this is a debate that the bill's supporters have decisively lost. This Act of electoral suicide needs to be stopped
ah Weston, there is a good reason why the left doesn't rely on the Herald for its political strategy.
National's polling is apparently...
surely we don't need to even begin on the reasons for relying on this for any kind of useful information whatsoever. i mean really.
the problems associated with only making legislation that's popular aside, far from being lost the tide is rather turning. now that the general public are starting to cotton on to how badly mislead they've been by the msm on this, and the fact that actually National, in association with various ultra-conservative US-backed rightwing fundamentalist churches have also mislead the public on what the bill is actually about, the 'Bill's Opponents" are starting to get decided nervous.
National has nailed its colours to a sinking ship on this one - listen to them start to scream, and watch them get even nastier as they flail about trying to rescue their image.
-
WH,
Hey Jackie - I enjoyed the clip. I suspect you are right about this:
Far be it from me to tell people how to raise their kids, but I've said it before, and I'll say it again - life is about connection, and as a teacher, I can change one child's disruptive behaviour quicker with lots of hugs and kindness than I could by yelling and being all standover about it
Riddley, the following comes from Jeremy Waldron's Law and Disagreement
The more dangerous temptation is not to pretend an opposing view does not exist, but to treat it as beneath notice in respectable deliberation by assuming that it is ignorant or prejudiced or self-interested or based on insufficient contemplation of reality. Such an attitude embodies the idea that since truth in matters of justice, right or policy is singular and consensus is its natural embodiment, some special explanation - some factor of deliberative pathology, such as the lingering taint of self interest - is required to explain disagreement, which explanation can then be cited as a reason for putting the deviant view to one side.
-
Nice quote from Jeremy Waldron, Weston. There's a couple of points to make in response, though. The first is that given that the majority consensus on this is that it's just fine to smack your kids, then it's those of us who oppose that view who are being characterised as deviants. The words used aren't about 'deviancy' - you will find us charactersised as wooly thinking unrealistic liberals, who just want to interfere in other people's families.
That aside (afterall, arguing about who is the underdog in this debate is a futile distraction), arguments from authority are fundamentally flawed. I'm not at all concerned about you quoting Professor Waldron, but it would be good if you could tell us how you see the quote applying to the current situation in NZ.
-
WH,
Hi Deborah,
I'm not at all concerned about you quoting Professor Waldron, but it would be good if you could tell us how you see the quote applying to the current situation in NZ
I intended to say that it is often unhelpful to reduce genuine differences of opinion to the inability of your opponents to properly grasp moral reality. The 85% of the public that supports this bill encompasses more than half of Labour's constituency. The suggestion that we are talking about a fringe viewpoint here can be discarded.
Unless Riddley can demonstrate to me that smacking is genuinely harmful to children, I don't accept that there is a liberal justification for this legislation. His attempt to portray smacking as some dubious practice of US religious conservatives must yield to the idea that our society embraces freedom of religion, even in situations where he may not like it.
who just want to interfere in other people's families
Whatever the merits of their position may be, I don't see how supporters of this bill can evade this criticism.
-
Whatever the merits of their position may be, I don't see how supporters of this bill can evade [the] criticism [that they just want to interfere in other people's families].
This isn't a criticism of the bill. Sure, it will involve 'interference' in families, but as it turns out, we really don't have a problem with that. We demand that children are educated, we prosecute parents who 'fail to provide the necessaries of life', we acknoweldge that rape within marriage is possible, we refuse to accept that someone hitting his or her partner is 'just a domestic'. So 'interfering' in families is not a problem, in itself.
And it oughtn't to be. Citizenship doesn't stop at the front door.
So the real question is whether this is (another) case where the state ought to look into what is actually happening in the family.
As you know, I think it is just such a case. And that's because I think children are citizens, not possessions. Moreover, they are paradigmatically vulnerable citizens. If there is anyone the state ought to try to protect, it's the vulnerable.
-
85% of the public that supports this bill
i presume Weston, you actually meant oppose the bill right?
the poll i heard 85% agreed with was worded something like
"Is it acceptable to smack a child when they are naughty?"
Which was then mysteriously confabulated to "85% of NZers disagree with the bill". other similar figures are likely to be similar appalling examples of push polling, or at best the reflection of merely an horrendously misinformed public. so you really can't keep clinging to that if you're expecting to ride it to safety.i suggest you try reading for some of the other answers to your questions. but in short this bill has nothing to do with smacking
(not sure if you may have read that anywhere else else), to say so it to misapprehend the bill and what it means, and instead to suck up the shite that its opponents have been desperately peddling from the start. its about removing a legal defence for serious assualts against children. not smacking. i'm tired of that one weston, try being more creative with your straw men.as for religious US fundamentalist churches supporting the opposition to this bill, you are quite right. but there are plenty of ordinary middle NZers who oppose it too, mostly because some people keep trying to pretend its about smacking, which is never was. unless of course you believe everything you read in Fairfax and APN products, or hear of Talkback of course.
-
WH,
Riddley,
mostly because some people keep trying to pretend its about smacking, which is never was
I believe that legislation should mean what it says. It seems to me that you haven't grasped the distinction between criminalisation and prosecutorial discretion. The purpose and effect of the proposed s.59(2) and (3) is clear:
Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, we have recommended
amendments to the bill to clarify that parents may use
reasonable force in some circumstances, but not for the purpose of
corrections.59(2): Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
I think the minority Parliamentary view on this bill is correct and that the Burrows amendment not only better reflects public opinion and our society's ideas about liberalism and freedom of religion, but it represents a technically superior approach to the drafting of legislation. You may disagree about all of this.
However, on the factual question on whether this bill is about smacking, Riddley, you are mistaken.
-
Weston said:
Unless Riddley can demonstrate to me that smacking is genuinely harmful to children, I don't accept that there is a liberal justification for this legislation.
This, from the Social Policy Journal of New Zealand last March, might be a start:
Research findings about the effects of physical punishment on outcomes for children provide a persuasive argument in favour of changing policies on the use of physical punishment within families. 2 A research team from the Children’s Issues Centre recently reviewed research on the guidance and discipline of children (Smith et al. 2005). This paper summarises and updates a section of that report. The research suggests that physical punishment is both ineffective and harmful as a method of disciplining children. This paper provides both an overview and specific examples of recent research on physical punishment relating to the following topics: social, cognitive and mental health; moral internalisation and family relationship outcomes; and the interactions with culture and ethnicity. It is firstly important to get some definitions clear, because much of the debate about the effects stems from the difficulty in agreeing on definitions.
-
WH,
Russell and Deborah,
I would support an long term effort to teach parents, and prospective parents, the skills they need to raise their kids properly. What I do not support, at this stage at least, is a smacking ban that will be imposed before such an effort is undertaken.
I'm not qualified to comment on the empirical evidence Russell has put forward, save to note the differences of professional opinion and criticisms of methodology cited therein. While I must admit to a little scepticism about studies undertaken in the social sciences, I am open to persuasion on this point. Thank you for pointing this article out to me.
If there is anyone the state ought to try to protect, it's the vulnerable
This is a sentiment I can only respect, even if we disagree on precisely how it should be applied.
What say we settle this on the runway... Han-Solo? Are you challenging me to a walk-off... Boo-Lander?
Hey has anyone seen Riddley? :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.