Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The gang insignia ban is a waste of time and money. It's hard to see what difference it will make.
In fact I wonder if the move will be counterproductive. Demonising and outlawing gangs may simply them more exciting to prospective members. And how do you ban colours?
Of course, trying to address why people join gangs in the first place (poverty, family breakdown, poor education etc etc) is way too unsexy.
-
Spondre is something of a serial blogger/poster in the blogosphere. He pops up everywhere.
He's also been banned from a number of blogs, and was recently booted off as a poster on right wing blogsite No Minister
He seems to be adept at making enemies. Although he did recently "out" Redbaiter on Kiwiblog (I can't for some reason find the link - will try later), so give the man some credit.
-
I still get the Listener. There is much dross, but still the occasional good bit. Although with columnists like Ralston and Black they probably need to rebrand to The Curmudgeon.
-
I won't share my ignorance re: whether that would apply to assault too. I just thought I'd share what I found in my random glances:
They are of course guiding principles only, not a set of rigid rules :)
-
What Josh said.
Some of what Josh said is covered by section 48 of the Crimes Act. That's the "defence of others" provision. It applies to everyone, so I agree you could argue some parts of section 59 are unnecessary.
Around this point I like to ask whether a legal guardian has ever been charged with kidnapping for making a child go to their room.
Were a charge to be laid I imagine the defence might mention the powers granted to legal guardians under the Care of Children Act 2004. And if force were used to compel obedience section 59 could of course be relied on.
Pre 2004 they might have mentioned the Guardianship Act 1968. Pre 1968 - God knows. I do have a day job to do, you know...
Scotty: Just kidding. :)
Okay. Let me just scratch your name from my “those who must be punished when my reign of terrror begins” list (no smacking of course - just enforced time-outs)
-
Scotty. Just don't hit your kids. Its like giving up smoking. A time of withdrawl symptoms, like itching, burning palms, sweating, but you can do it man. Just give it up!
So because I point out that the law is messy and uncertain in some areas, that makes me a child beater?
Of course I may have missed the point of your last remark - maybe you were being humorous.
Burping a baby is possibly the silliest example I've heard of yet over the past two years.
I may have missed it, but I don't recall anyone arguing that burping a baby is currently illegal.
I was merely pointing out that there are actually sensible reasons for not repealing section 59 in its entirety. Otherwise some day to day parenting routines would be criminal. So removing the "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting" provision may not be so wise.
-
I find all the discussion around when you can and can't hit a child creepy - is it prevention or correction - wtf!.
It may be creepy, but understanding what the law allows parents to do is kind of essential to the debate about whether the law should change.
-
If it isn't stopping them doing it *in the act*, it's not preventative, surely?
You may be right. That's certainly what I think the law probably means. But I also concede it's unclear, because other people I have spoken to about what the law means have an entirely different view.
Surely the bit where its say "whatever I said before, no force for correction" and then says, "did you see back there where I said that about no force for correction" overrides that question.
You may also be right. But I wonder whether it is always clearcut where the line between prevention and correction is.
I am writing in support of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes act.
Repealing the entire section is not the answer.
There are many circumstances where force is justified. Holding back a struggling child who is trying to run across a busy road, burping a windy baby etc. Alll would be assaults if s59 went altogether.
-
Er, seems pretty straightforward to me. You can stop a kid doing something by whatever means are necessary; you just can't hit them because they did it/tried to do it. What's confusing there?
It would help if the law actually said that. It doesn’t.
For example, the wording of s59 may also support an argument that inflicting harm after the event may be preventative. If the child who runs across the road gets a belt immediately afterwards, he/she may refrain from running across the road again. In that case is it prevention or correction? I have no idea.
Different people look at s59 and see different things. That’s clear just by reading the different interpretations in this thread.
More to the point, why is that a problem? I submit that anyone who smacks their child after that child tries to run onto the road (having successfully prevented them doing so) will be doing it to relieve their own stress/anger more than anything else, which is hardly the stuff of which good parental correction is made.
People smack for different reasons. Many do it out of anger, but others do it because they genuinely believe the infliction of pain is a valid way to correct errant behaviour (“spare the rod” etc). I’m not saying that’s a valid approach towards parenting, but we shouldn’t assume anyone who smacks has simply lost his/her temper. In many cases they may simply need to learn better parenting skills.
For the record, I don’t think a parent who administers a light smack should be criminalised in most cases. But then the discretion available to the police arguably achieves that anyway. Which is why the entire referendum was a waste of money.
-
It's not at all clear in what circumstances section 59 allows the use of force. It is reasonably clear, I think, that you can use force to restrain a child from running onto a busy road, but if you smacked your child afterwards for doing it (even immediately afterwards), that might still amount to an offence (subject to the police's discretion not to prosecute). The question in that scenario is are you using force to prevent or correct? The law isn't clear, but it could be argued that any use of force after a child has been bad amounts to correction.
The law is a mess, the referendum question was a stupid one, and Key and Goff say they won't change the law. Which is why I suspect so many people decided to have no part of it. I had been planning to vote yes, but decided in the end to abstain and not be part of the farce.
Another reason not to get exercised by the whole thing: Baldock's party is a joke and will likely remain that way. And National voters are hardly going to desert to Labour over this issue. So what's the risk to Key if he does nothing? The whole thing will probably prove to be simply a colossal waste of money.