Cracker: Smack Your Kids Up
145 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Michael, I'm agin laws that enshrine an idea. I think they are likely to be particularly bad laws.
Most PA readers probably agree when that argument is used in other areas - say drug law. It would send an admirable message about the dangers of drug abuse to outlaw party pills, but people like Russell will rightly point out that it's wrong to punish the many in pursuit of a few extreme cases, that laws that are difficult to enforce are a bad idea because they lower respect for the law, and so on.
This law makes any smack (with certain situational exceptions) illegal. Outlawing all smacking to send a message about child abuse is like, I dunno, outlawing all alcohol to send a message about drunkeness.
-
All fair points Stephen, and I concede the logic therein. My position is that I endorse the bill simply due to its ethic.
Ideas like not hitting your kids will take a while to embed, but I'll support genuine efforts to discredit violence in the home.
-
Or perhaps it's a useful way of taking the heat out of a situation and allowing those involved to have a think about things. Honestly ...
I don't know about you, Russell, but when I'm in a combustible situation with grown ups I walk out of the room, go make a cup of tea, do anything that gives me a chance to chill out instead of getting in a nuclear slanging match. (Well, that's the theory.) I don't drag the other party to the 'naughty step' and tell 'em to sit there and think about what they've done. You know something, 'Time outs' work - all I'm suggesting is a little honesty about why.
-
That's a great article by Tapu Misa. Compare and contrast with the two in the DomPost today - including this one where some guy wants to speak for "Christians, Maori, Pacific Islanders and parents of special needs children". Would it be trite to suggest that the journalist got in touch with some of these groups? As an ex-Christian myself, I wonder just how I would be persecuted by the passing of this bill which seems entirely consistent with the "core values" espoused by Christianity.
Not an easy one this. I suspect the "right" answer is not with us yet but the bill is probably a step in the right direction - especially when you look at overseas examples of similar legislation being enacted.
-
I personally don't think there should be any smacking, either in laws or in reality. I think the select committee muddied the issue and forgot how laws (and their implementation) work when they changed it from simply removing section 59 to adding in what's essentially no brainer exceptions.
It was noted this morning on the radio, that some time ago (mid-1980s?) corporal punishment was removed from our schools. And there was a great outcry that teachers wouldn't be able to control kids and kids would run crazy etc etc.
None of that has come to pass. Indeed I think the removal of that power has partially led to better teaching skills as a result. Teachers have developed better strategies to deal with problem kids. We're going to see the same thing with parenting over the next 20 years when this bill passes, and good on it.
The massive paranoia being promoted by people and the media that anyone who struggles with a kid to get them in a car seat is going to be prosecuted is tosh. This is an emotive issue obviously, but some people need to switch their brains on before they rant. Any cop on the beat will be able to answer that question, let alone the cops who are going to set the policy on it.
There's no way that the police are going to use the same aggressive policy to deal with smacking kids as part of parenting gone over the top, to partner abuse. They're developing a policy, let's wait until it's done before 'we' jump on it.
-
Cool, finally a growed-up discussion about something I've written...
Michael: I agree that moving towards a society where no-one smacks their kids is a good idea. Bradford's initial bill, the simple repeal, would have been that beacon legislation. But the public isn't there yet - nowhere near - and clearly neither was the select committee when it amended the bill within an inch of its life.
If we're going to have the "all smacking is bad" argument, then let's have it clearly and simply, and not confused with the misapplication of 'reasonable force'. And let's lead with education, rather than criminalisation.
I agree with Stephen on this, passing laws that are vague and no-one has any intention of enforcing most of the time do nothing to promote respect for the law, or for those tasked with its enforcement - I'd argue similarly that otherwise law-abiding pot smokers have a more negative view of the police because they spend too much time nervously looking over their shoulder to see if they're around.
Yes, the law is being clarified now: smacking for correction = bad, smacking for safety/other reasons = good, but the whole reasonable force thing remains as vague as ever. And that's where the riding crops come out.
-
The fact that organisations at the front line of domestic violence (such as Women's Refuge) are in support of the bill's amendments speak volumes.
And that's where the riding crops come out.
aruh???
However, one thought that occurred to me this morning is that parents could start inciting their other offspring to mete out physical punishment to their siblings on their behalf. A twisted thought.
-
I was talking with a friend about recycled jokes. The example of a George Bush joke came up, how it had done the rounds before as a Nixon version.
Essentially, Bush is out jogging, falls off a bridge into a raging torrent. Before his minders can get to him a bunch of kids who happen to be on the scene pull him out.
Bush offers to grant their wishes in return for saving his life. One asks for a trip to Disneyland, another wants to ride the space shuttle. No problem, says Bush, but when the last kid asks for a titanium wheelchair with a built-in Playstation, phone, etc. he's puzzled - "But you're not even crippled!"
"I will be after my dad learns that I helped rescue you", says the kid.My friend's ten-year-old daughter was listening. He asked her if she found the joke funny.
"Well", she says, "Only if you think that hitting kids is funny".
"OK", he says, "you tell us a funny one". So we get the Ooops-I-Did-It-Again joke about Britney Spears farting.That was around five years ago. Things have moved on, including Britney, although not necessarily for the best.
Most of the objections to the anti-smacking bill smack (bad pun intended) of the over the top nonsense from twenty years ago that was raised against homosexual law reform.
The 'I'll be charged for whacking my son/daughter in the heat of the moment' argument is just as spurious as the dopey old canard about how 'any bloke will be able to have his way with me while I'm standing at the bus stop'. -
Joe, I'm not sure the analogy works, i.e how you equate a law giving police the potential power to prosecute for an act many (if not most) parents engage in, with some old homophobe's fear of being raped.
If anything, I could see a better analogy with the state of affairs BEFORE the homosexual law reform. Just because the police chose not to prosecute the majority of people who went round getting off with those of the same sex, didn't make the law right, did it?
-
Michael, I'm agin laws that enshrine an idea. I think they are likely to be particularly bad laws.
All laws enshrine ideas.
That may be the silliest thing I've ever heard you say.
-
Now would be a good time to observe that Greg O'Connor has been known to talk complete crap before - fairly frequently, in fact - and he's the only source for the story here.
Twenty or thirty years Mr. O'Connor would now doubt have been objecting to beefed up policing of domestic violence because of the horror of having to arrest anyone when it was claimed they'd raised a hand to their wife, no matter how trivially.
-
Oh, you've heard me say sillier things than that :)
-
So, if you have any reservations about the Bradford Bill you're the kind of person who thinks any victim of domestic violence must have been asking for it, or would repeal Homosexual Law Reform in a heartbeat?
I think this is where I came in, and it's where I'm getting off. Thanks for the thoughtful post, Damien, it's nice to see there's still a voice out there who isn't falling for the smug, self-righteous crap of either extreme.
-
If anything, I could see a better analogy with the state of affairs BEFORE the homosexual law reform. Just because the police chose not to prosecute the majority of people who went round getting off with those of the same sex, didn't make the law right, did it?
I think they're both terrible analogies. Equating charging homosexuals for having sex to parents smacking kids... yeah. Most police officers when you try and draw those two together are going to look at you funny (and then possibly arrest you).
We have lots of laws which are not universally applied. Assault is probably the most common, assaults happen all the time, the rugby field is only one example - drunken idiots at the pub, kids in school yards having a bust-up. The police know these things go on, 'lack of resources' is not the only reason they don't pursue them, 'common sense' is the other one. They're not going to go chasing witnesses to a rugby match when the forwards had a brawl, and then arrest 10 people, unless some sort of serious assault/injury was involved. It's a system that works pretty well, and no one is up in arms that the assault laws need to be re-written to exclude 'minor fighting occurring in the process of the playing of sports'.
Everyone who's 'uncomfortable about parliament passing laws that aren't always followed' needs to go think about what would happen if everything in the Crimes Act was prosecuted. And if everyone who drove 51 km got a ticket. And if every person who left a 13 year old at home for 5 minutes while they went to the dairy got charged. If every underage kid who had sex with their underage boy/girlfriend got charged.
This discretion exercised by the police and the prosecutorial system is an important part of our legal system, which happens all the time, but we're not normally consciously aware of it. Smacking of kids always has, and always will, fall under the same system.
Yes the bar will move. Yes it will move more towards smacking being something that is investigated and prosecuted. Will everyone be prosecuted? No. Do police officers have brains? Normally, yes. Is there an independent legal system to provide balance if they go too far? Yes.
Will it overall be an improvement if this bill gets passed? I think so.
-
Not all statute law is ‘good’ or even able to be obeyed easily. There is simply too much that is produced in any one year, too many different people (stakeholders?) involved in the drafting process and too little resources to ensure consistently high quality. Errors creep through, and for every bill that gets attention like this one there would be dozens or more which slip through with little attention paid to them.
Take a look at any large bill or act, examine it with your mad grammar skillz, read the purpose statements, explanatory notes (etc), apply basic statutory interpretation tests and see how well they stack up. I think you will be unpleasantly surprised.
Oh, and what Kyle said.
-
Twenty or thirty years Mr. O'Connor would now doubt have been objecting to beefed up policing of domestic violence because of the horror of having to arrest anyone when it was claimed they'd raised a hand to their wife, no matter how trivially.
Isn't it a shame we didn't have this robust level of debate around when the crimes act was first passed.
'The government wants to make sexual assault illegal! That means that if I slap my husbands ass I'll be thrown in prison for rape!'
'Yes. And these laws against animal cruelty are insane! If I accidentally step on an ant and someone reports me to the police they'll have no choice but to investigate.'
'How crazy! The frustrating thing is that even when these laws against rape and murder are passed it won't deter any criminals. Clearly the entire concept of a justice system is flawed!' -
Twenty or thirty years Mr. O'Connor would now doubt have been objecting to beefed up policing of domestic violence because of the horror of having to arrest anyone when it was claimed they'd raised a hand to their wife, no matter how trivially.
Isn't it a shame we didn't have this robust level of debate around when the crimes act was first passed.
'The government wants to make sexual assault illegal! That means that if I slap my husbands ass I'll be thrown in prison for rape!'
'Yes. And these laws against animal cruelty are insane! If I accidentally step on an ant and someone reports me to the police they'll have no choice but to investigate.'
'How crazy! The frustrating thing is that even when these laws against rape and murder are passed it won't deter any criminals. Clearly the entire concept of a justice system is flawed!' -
Damian - For me, institutionalised acceptance of child-beating is pretty much on a par with institutionalised homophobia. There's been a massive generational shift in attitude on the subject of child-raising, which the bill in question reflects. I'd suggest that the casual acceptance of child-beating being OK because 'many (if not most) parents' do it is destined for the same dustbin as sneering attitudes about 'poofters'. 'Many (if not most)' of the populace felt that such behaviour was just fine c. 1980. Some had to be dragged kicking and screaming, but we grew up.
-
3410,
Am I the only one who thinks that outlawing "reasonableness" as a defence displays a failure to understand even what the word "reasonable" means?
-
The reductio ad absurdum, it hurts.
I take your point Kyle, but the fact is we now have a set of conventions and expectations about the contours of discretion when it comes to the situations your describe. If the police DID start regularly bringing prosecutions for assault in the examples you bring up, we probably would have an outcry at that change in policy, and perhaps a change in the law.
Conventions and expectations have yet to be set in the case at hand, and I think it's quite legitimate to worry about just how they will turn out.
Ben, you're telling me that there's a bunch of bad law out there already, and it's getting bigger. Well, I don't find that comforting, or a reason to not to object to any more.
-
The rugby tackle example is bogus. There have been cases of assault in rugby matches brought to trial - and judges have ruled, depending on the facts, and based on arguments around consent and so on, that there was no assault. That's why the police don't charge in every case of onfield violence - because they don't think they'll win.
But might it not be argued that that is also why the police don't prosecute cases that go far beyind the "light smack" everyone likes to talk about - because they know that people have escaped conviction via the Section 59 defence?
BTW, cases of assault stemming from incidents on the rugby field - even assaults committed well outside the rules - are very rare indeed. Even assaults on referees aren't always prosecuted.
-
Just imagine if the government had shown the public the enthusiasm for strengthening the family rather than passing legislation that will hand police another quagmire of bad family law. Already most lawyers will not have a bar of the confusing family law. It is a great pity that government does not recognise recent studies, which show that paternal influences do have an effect upon child socio-emotional development. However, if government were really genuine about the plight of our vulnerable children they would have voted at United Nations level to focus on the preservation of the family unit which is the paramount consideration for most correct thinking countries .It is another sad day for the children and parents of New Zealand .
-
I take your point Kyle, but the fact is we now have a set of conventions and expectations about the contours of discretion when it comes to the situations your describe. If the police DID start regularly bringing prosecutions for assault in the examples you bring up, we probably would have an outcry at that change in policy, and perhaps a change in the law.
Conventions and expectations have yet to be set in the case at hand, and I think it's quite legitimate to worry about just how they will turn out.
But that's always the case with laws - their exact implications on all of us aren't necessarily clear from the law. They are somewhere in between 'every parent who touches their child will be a criminal', and 'police won't be doing anything different from what they do now'.
As is always the case, the police, judiciary, various community and government organisations, and if necessary, parliament, will get involved to make the abstract law have practical implications.
Those implications will also change over time. About 15-20 years ago police ramped it up big time on domestic violence. A lot more men were arrested, and more convictions were pursued, even if they weren't guaranteed wins (in particular, they no longer required the victim/partner to give evidence). These weren't just law changes, they were the police admitting that they hadn't been doing the best job, and changing their policy on dealing with domestic violence. It's not a perfect world as a result, but it's an improvement.
Smacking children is out in that same system. The bill is just shifting the grey area.
-
Just imagine if the government had shown the public the enthusiasm for strengthening the family rather than passing legislation that will hand police another quagmire of bad family law.
Section 59 isn't family law, which deals with children's rights, parents, access, decisions about children etc etc. It's part of the Crimes Act and it's Criminal Law.
And paternal influences have massive influence on children's socio-emotional development. I think a fair few people would argue that smacking kids however is a negative influence on them, and so the bill would therefore be indeed exactly about helping our 'vulnerable children'.
-
Why not apply a technology solution instead? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bradford's Bill doesn't cover tasering tots and toddlers, does it?
Silly to hit the little buggers anyway. You might break a nail or a knuckle, and at the rate children grow up today, you only have like a ten year window before they'll retaliate by breaking your nose or something.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.