Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As the Herald story says, this research 'refutes' thousands of international studies. Which is interesting, but doesn't make it correct.
Um, I think you'll find that the Herald article was quoting the Otago Uni psychologist as saying that not one of the thousands of international studies was inconsistent with this study's findings:
"I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids," she said.
-
... that gets you into some weird territory.
it's not that we're drinking...?
It's how we're drinking ...
"It's not that we smack - it's how we smack" would be a decidedly odd public information campaign.
-
As long as you take out the bad smacking before you count.
No. Rather, you use the study to determine what bad smacking is. Then you ban that .
But I think we've had this argument before, and I'm not minded to repeat it.
In short, don't take a high daily dose of aspirin to avoid heart attacks.
And don't drink a bottle of wine a day because some study suggests that half-a-glass of red is beneficial (but only if you take out the bad drinking before you count ... it's not that we're drinking...?).
-
if you separate the most low-impact corporal punishment from the rest, your results improve to the point where they're about as good as not using corporal punishment at all.
About as good, or better , was the conclusion.
And yet we still make criminal 'the most low-impact corporal punishment'.
-
Baumrind is always cited by pro-smackers -- there are very few supportive studies available to them. You don't hear so much of the criticism by other researchers that appeared in the same journal.
She also didn't find "spanking" improved outcomes, only that children who were only seldom hit weren't significantly worse off than the ones who were never hit.
There's also the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. I believe that appeared to find that children disciplined with mild/light smacking 'had "similar or even slightly better outcomes" than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.'
As for there being "very few supportive studies" ... the lead author of that component of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study offered the following, which may explain that "... psychologist Jane Millichamp, said the project appeared to be the first long-term study in the world to separate out those who had merely been smacked with an open hand."
The Herald article in which she was quoted (linked above) also noted:
"I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids," she said.
"I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.
"The more honest researchers have said, let's be honest, we all wish we could say it's all very clear and that no parent should ever lift a finger on a child - although I think that is totally unrealistic as a single parent myself - but the big problem is that a lot of the studies have lumped a whole lot of forms of physical punishment together."
Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the "slippery slope" theory - that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.
"We couldn't find any," she said.
But then, I don't really want to defend smacking either.
Also don't ask me to defend smoking ... even though I don't think that should be illegal.
-
Frankly, I don't mind if he gets diversion, so long as he gets some help with that anger and stops acting it out on his small children.
Diversion is not a possibility.
Diversion happens very early on in the process, and basically results in the police dropping the charges.
The equivalent post-trial 'sentence' is a discharge without conviction. It seems unlikely in this case.
-
The Bulls scored 12 points from dropgoals including one from halfway (or thereabouts). How the hell do you defend against that?
Start kicking them yourself?
-
I think a rule of thumb for live crosses would be to not do them in a place where _no_ information relevant to the story originated.
My nightly news tends to be World News on TVNZ7. They occasionally have live crosses. More commonly, they have a taped report, followed by live analysis by the reporter. When this happens, the reporter is usually either sitting at the desk over from the anchor, or sitting in another newsroom.
-
One point (that I couldn't see covered but apologies if it was) is the "steer" away from prosecution in the act. Does this count as a "defence"? Or if the action is considered not to fall within the stated defences of s59 BUT is considered inconsequential by Police (or whatever the wording is) have you committed an illegal act and just not been prosecuted for it?
The steer away from prosecution - which may indeed be overstating the legal effect of the provision - is not a defence. You've got it exactly right - smacking is illegal, but if police decide not to prosecute someone for it there is an illegal act ... just one that wasn't prosecuted.
-
Let's call it something other than the "smacking law". I prefer to call it section 59 of the Crimes Act. That removes all of the problems with labelling the law as something it isn't.
Not section 5 of the Crimes (Substitued Section 59) Amendment Act?
Section 59 of the Crimes Act used to mean that smacking ones children was legal (... if the force was reasonable in the circumstances, etc.).
The section that now means that it is illegal is section 194.