Cracker by Damian Christie

Read Post

Cracker: Smack Your Kids Up

145 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Jason Lea,

    Juha is, as always, right. Plus, shouldn't the right to smack kids be extended past parents to anyone within arms reach... "It takes a village to raise a child"

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • dad4justice,

    Can anybody answer my question as many Barristers cannot ?? – when a parent is arrested for smacking a child will they be subjected to the same provisions contained in a protection order under the DV Act , which by the way states that no application’s for a protection order may be made against a child ? Let’s hope kids don’t bash mummy eh?

    What a lot of dysfunctional legal rot this bill is, talk about shifting the dark area. I await your answer to my question with much anticipation .

    Since Jan 2007 • 50 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    when a parent is arrested for smacking a child will they be subjected to the same provisions contained in a protection order under the DV Act

    D4J - I can.

    They will not.

    People against whom a protection order is made will be subject to the provisions of protection orders. People who are arrested or charged are not automatically subject to protection orders.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Kyle Matthews wrote:
    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.

    Um, yes and no. I know it's a school of political/jurisprudential thought that's falling out of favour, but I prefer an elected legislature to, well... do it's damn job and legislate - and take it seriously enough to go through a careful process of consideration and debate of carefully drafted legislation that is more about passing workable law than how it's going to play out in the next polling cycle.

    While I don't entirely side with the judiciary on all matters, I've got a suggestion for the next politicians (of any stripe) who wants to attack someone on the bench as a 'judicial activists'. Garbage in, garbage out.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Jason Lea,

    dad4justice, what happens currently? It certainly won't change if the bill is passed.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • dad4justice,

    Thank you Graeme ,as police and the legal fraternity I have talked to would strongly disagree with you , but you would know more about things than them ?

    I will let them know, as they are totally confused because they thought they would charge under the DV act, which makes the perpetrator of any form of violence subject to a protection order .

    What Act are you referring to , as I must go and buy one and swat up on it so I can help the flood of bewildered parents that this bill will effect?

    Since Jan 2007 • 50 posts Report Reply

  • dad4justice,

    Infact Graeme my QC lawyer and Detective Senior friends would like to know how you know this, as they can't find the legal precedence you base your mis-directed opinion on ?

    Since Jan 2007 • 50 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Um, yes and no. I know it's a school of political/jurisprudential thought that's falling out of favour, but I prefer an elected legislature to, well... do it's damn job and legislate - and take it seriously enough to go through a careful process of consideration and debate of carefully drafted legislation that is more about passing workable law than how it's going to play out in the next polling cycle.

    You'd need to push for parliament not to write laws then methinks. Bradford's original bill was at least quite clean and legally clear. The way the select committee re-wrote it, leaves it open to almost as much vagueness as the current one, as did Chester's amendment.

    But I don't think you can legislate the specificities of these sorts of laws. There's no legislation indicating when a brawl on a football pitch is just that, and when it should be pursued legally through the courts. And you'd look stupid trying - four punches not three, blood drawn and broken noses vs just bruises. Why would you argue for the same silliness in a different context for the same crime?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Can anybody answer my question as many Barristers cannot ?? – when a parent is arrested for smacking a child will they be subjected to the same provisions contained in a protection order under the DV Act

    This Act won't change, and I wouldn't imagine its enforcement would either. People who enact:

    (a) physical abuse:
    (b) sexual abuse:
    (c) psychological abuse

    against a child may face protection orders.

    Anyone who thinks a court is going to put in place a protection order against a parent because they smacked their kid a little bit hard needs to sit down and have a cup of tea and stop scare-mongering. If you take to your kid with a block of wood and they end up needing medical treatment, then you'll face the law, and so you should.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • dad4justice,

    "Anyone who thinks a court is going to put in place a protection order against a parent because they smacked their kid a little bit hard needs to sit down and have a cup of tea and stop scare-mongering."

    Police have said they will treat smacking a child under rules of the DV Act, which clearly states any kind of abuse , including emotional is an offense. Police will have no alternative but to issue a PO.

    Since Jan 2007 • 50 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    d4j - yes it would appear I do.

    Domestic Violence is not an offence under the Domestic Violence Act - the only offences in that act relate to breach of a protection order and publishing a report of a proceeding under the act without leave of the court.

    If my girlfriend beats me up she cannot be charged with an offence under the domestic violence act - she can rather be charged with an offence under the Crimes Act (common assault or one of the more serious ones like injuring, etc.) or the Summary Proceedings Act (common assault).

    The only way someone can be subjected to protection orders is if a protection order is made against them. The only way people can be charged under the Domestic Violence Act following an assault is if there was already a protection order against them, and that assault was prohibited by it.

    The legal basis for my assertions is the Domestic Violence Act, backed up with the Crimes Act and the Summary Offences Act.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Jason Lea,

    Crimes Act:
    common assault
    Assault on a child, or by a male on a female

    hmm...
    Girl hits Boy = 1 year (common assault)
    Boy hits Girl = 2 years (Assault by male on female)

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Police have said they will treat smacking a child under rules of the DV Act, which clearly states any kind of abuse , including emotional is an offense. Police will have no alternative but to issue a PO.

    Well whichever police you've been listening to, I think they need to check their police manuals. Courts issue protection orders, not police.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • dad4justice,

    I am not prepared to argue with you Graeme on this matter, however you will be proved wrong, as many parents will become the respondent of protection orders under this bill.

    This will be a fact and I will be proved correct in the future and please do not insult my intelligence, as I have a more than a full interruption of most aspects of criminal and family law.

    I finish with stating that it is a sad day for New Zealand when 85% of the population have had the right to use discipline to set boundaries taken away by a nanny state government .

    Democracy sucks in kiwiland .

    Since Jan 2007 • 50 posts Report Reply

  • dad4justice,

    Oh yes just one more thing , how come female assaults male charge does not exist in New Zealand ? Oh yes silly me, the pendulum theory does not exist as the radical feminists have smashed the clock.

    Since Jan 2007 • 50 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    d4J - I am not defending this bill.

    I am strongly opposed to this bill.

    People may use the criminalising of a light smack in proceedings for custody or protection orders. Zealous CYFs workers may use that criminalisation to take children from parents. Etc.

    But people charged with assaulting their children by lightly smacking them will not face automatic protection orders.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • dad4justice,

    as I have a more than a full interruption of most aspects of criminal and family law.

    I meant to say interpretation of most aspects blah , blah ,

    that word interruption just won't go away as it best describes this abysmal atttempt at trying to address the issues of child abuse which we lead the world at .

    Since Jan 2007 • 50 posts Report Reply

  • dad4justice,

    Graeme,
    Glad to hear you oppose this bill, however what I do find rather disturbing is the idea mooted to various women ‘s groups by the Principal Family Court judge Boshier - that police will soon have the powers to issue on the spot protection orders.

    It is conceivable that I would link this development and timing to the passing of this bill .

    Where is my nurofen .
    Have a good day mate - cheers

    Since Jan 2007 • 50 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    You'd need to push for parliament not to write laws then methinks.

    Well, perhaps that's a good idea if you don't think Parliamentarians are anything more than poll-driven fruit cakes. I'm perfectly well aware that you can't draft a piece of legislation that will cover every eventuality in perpetuity - but I think we can do a damn sight better than shrugging your shoulders and leave it to the courts to intuit what was meant by poorly worded and ill-defined legislation. In the end, isn't that why we're here - because Sue Bradford was less than happy about the (in her view) over permissive interpretation of reasonable force by some juries. (And I think advocates of the Bradford Bill have gone a wee bit over the top in painting S.59 as a reliable get of jail free card for sadistic monsters. If anything, that kind of defence seems rather risky and far from certain.)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    giving women the vote - the sky is falling
    nz drops the poubnd for the dollar - the sky is falling
    nz military stops being cannon fodder for britain - the sky is falling
    husbands can't rape their wives - the sky is falling
    nz goes metric - the sky is falling
    teachers can't beat their pupils - the sky is falling
    nz stops doing anything the US asks - the sky is falling
    homosexuals can't be jailed for being gay - the sky is falling
    civil unions legal - the sky is falling
    treaty obligations honoured - the sky is falling
    hitting children outlawed - the sky is falling

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    oh yes, and you can't smoke inside restaurants and bars... the sky...

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    Well, perhaps that's a good idea if you don't think Parliamentarians are anything more than poll-driven fruit cakes

    and yet, according to D4J and a couple of Internet "polls" this is the most unpopular bit of legislation evah and NZ democracy is, as a result, on its knees.

    Colour me confused.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Austin,

    It is very interesting to watch all this playing out, to have a legislative record of how public morality has evolved over the last decade.

    Any guesses as to what will be the next like issue that makes it way to parliament?

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 1027 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    (And I think advocates of the Bradford Bill have gone a wee bit over the top in painting S.59 as a reliable get of jail free card for sadistic monsters. If anything, that kind of defence seems rather risky and far from certain.)

    I can't imagine many people beat a child with the intention of getting caught and having to use section 59 to get off. Most probably don't consciously think that they're going to be charged with assault. The fact that it has been used to get some fairly horrific beatings off indicates a problem in the system.

    And the original bill was entirely clear. If the select committee hadn't mangled it, it'd be about as clear as any other form of assault in the crimes act, and there's no public outcry about all of them.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • J Wilkinson,

    Paranoid Parents. Well known phrase.

    Don't you all think you’re being just a tad over the top?

    Do you REALLY think you'll be prosecuted?

    And if so, what will the sentence be?

    Fines? Community service? Prison? Home detention?

    This kind of change is challenging, but absolutely necessary in my opinion. If you can’t think of a different way to discipline your children, perhaps you need to remind yourself why you’re having children in the first place.

    What role do you think you play as parent? Guardian or god?

    Grafton • Since Feb 2007 • 24 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.