And we needs to stop using the word “smacking”. It’s hitting. It’s assault. “Smacking” is a word used to diminish the act, but it speaks volumes about our society that the only time it’s used is when it’s assault on children.
The word hitting is broader than the word smacking. I don't support doing either to children.
Sorry, all I read was “everything else you said was correct but I can’t ever admit I’m wrong.”
We all make mistakes.
How would you decriminalise light smacking, but also reduce/prevent cases where a parent is acquitted for behaviour they’re likely to have gotten a conviction for, had the recipient not been their child?
I thought Chester Borrows' proposed amendment, as adopted in John Boscawen's member's bill was a reasonable first attempt at compromise legislation.
The law change removed that defense, bringing assault against children into line with assault against adults, or animals.
Your understanding of the law around assaults on animals is mistaken.
You can make the same argument for any family violence. And it’s true. But should it somehow be legal to assault people you live with or are related to?
It will sometimes be true, and will sometimes not be true. I anticipate that the ratio differs between instances of smacking and other family violence. If you have evidence to confirm or dispute this, I would welcome it.
It is neither safe nor logical to assume a child is more frightened of the police taking their parent(s) away than they are of the parent(s) themselves.
I am not assuming that. I am open to the possibility that it is true for at least some people, in part based on anecdotal evidence.
But, Graeme, once again this is not an academic exercise.
No it's not. I'm talking about actual cases I know of in the criminal justice system where this happened (a child assault case, not a smacking case).
All seven of the parents convicted in the past five years struck their children in the head or face.
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.
Craig’s argument is, literally, that NZ’s “anti-smacking law” increases child abuse. That’s a much stronger claim than you’re making, and one that is rightly being pilloried.
It is certainly a different claim. I haven't seen evidence on the position you describe Craig as advancing, but it strikes me as an only probably false, not obviously false.
By the same argument, shouldn’t minor assault on adults also be legalised on the grounds that a criminal prosecution is unlikely to help the situation for either party?
Mostly, I'm talking about the consequences for the child, of a criminal conviction of a parent who has smacked.
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.