Posts by Russell Brown
-
The steps are new and the toilets will be handy.
-
Two panorama shots, one from above the mainstage terraces, the other stretching from the distant Tamaki and Aroha Stages to the stadium bowl. Click to embiggen,
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I thought Chester Borrows’ proposed amendment, as adopted in John Boscawen’s member’s bill was a reasonable first attempt at compromise legislation.
Did that come up before or after the compromises that were in the bill as it passed? The ones that specifically allow for the use of force to keep children and others safe? They seemed reasonable to me.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Heather Gaye,
And/or: what do you think of the outcomes of the cases publicised by anti-smacking lobbyists, before the law change? eg the one with the riding crop?
That's the one I'm referring to above. Terrible things were allowed to happen as a result of that acquittal.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Tim Darlington,
This one’s actually worse than the marijuana example. There’s nothing commendable about creating criminal law to “send a message,” with no intention of actually prosecuting anyone for the behaviour being criminalised. It’s not ony a waste of large amounts of the time and effort of very highly-paid individuals, it makes a mockery of criminal law.
The law on assault wasn’t “created” – it already existed. And in at least one case I’m aware of, the reasonable force defence was used to escape conviction in circumstances that allowed further assaults to continue. It’s only a suppression order that prevents me from outlining the miserable, upsetting case of the “Timaru Lady”.
The law on marijuana seeks to proscribe personal behaviour on the basis that it's unhealthy. We have not made, say, tobacco smoking illegal, but we have legislated to curb its impact on other people. I think that's a better comparison.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Nope. All seven of the parents convicted in the first five years after the law change, at which point police stopped recording. There aren’t data on what has happened in the last 18 months.
You are correct on this point.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Mostly, I’m talking about the consequences for the child, of a criminal conviction of a parent who has smacked.
All seven of the parents convicted in the past five years struck their children in the head or face. Surely we don't want the law to express tacit approval of that kind of assault on a child? And is it not likely that failing to act strongly against such assaults puts the child in future peril?
If I get into a minor scuffle in Courtenay Place, the person who I am fighting is not likely to suffer long-term if I have a conviction.
A better analogy would surely be you striking someone because you don't like their attitude or behaviour. You wouldn't get to argue "reasonable force", especially if you struck them in the head.
It might also be argued that you're more likely to punch someone in the head if you were likely to get away with it.
I suspect we do agree that there is a limit to comparisons between parental actions and adult assault. All parents use their strength to do things to children - - picking them under protest, for example -- that might constitute assault on an adult. But what the law says now is that you can't use physical force as punishment.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I thought maybe one (or two?), although that may have been charges, and then a discharge without conviction.
From one of the links in the post:
Police say they have prosecuted just eight parents for smacking children in the five years since the law came in. Seven of those parents had smacked their child in the head or face.
The eighth parent was discharged without conviction for striking the child on the hand. Police said they were also being called to fewer smacking incidents though they stopped counting smacking prosecutions after the Government's five-year review process came to an end.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
And, overall, is using the criminal law as an agent of social change in this way – like we do with many other things, including marijuana use – likely to cause more harm than good in this instance?
It's a very, very big stretch to make that comparison. There are around 5000 prosecutions for non-supply cannabis offences annually -- and police use of discretion is diminishing. The harms of such an approach have been noted by two Parliamentary select committee inquiries and the Law Commission. The same can't be said of the removal of the Section 59 defence. By contrast, police discretion seems to be used extensively in the case of smacking -- there have been eight prosecutions since the law change.
Also, there is no obvious child victim in cannabis use.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Jason Kemp,
For example a danger spot near me seems to be the over bridge from St Lukes Rd to MoTaT. If you want to cross the motorway to go left ( Western Springs College & Pasadena + other schools) you can’t. You have to cross the pedestrian crossing and walk down the footpath on the right hand side of the bridge or take your life in your hands and ride over a narrow bridge as the cycle lane disappears right there.
I use that overbridge all the time. Coming off the northwestern cycleway and turning right towards Motat takes some confidence. I just get myself to the front of the offramp traffic and go quickly on the green light. Coming over it the other way, I'll sprint quite hard to stay clear of traffic if I need to.. Family groups can and do use the path, but it's kind of nuts how tricky it is to approach a cycleway by bike.
