Hard News: Smack to the Future
358 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 15 Newer→ Last
-
Well it looks like it is hittng a nerve in Australia.
New Zealands has a dismal record of childrens rights and the recent UN HCR asking for NZ to RAISE the age of criminal responsibility adds to it. I can't understand how anyone could deny rights to a child when the law did not allow assault on an adult.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/08/23/1245c25f3d11
I suspect the govt response may have been different if this had come up on any other weekend other than the Referendum result. It would be bad to be seen going soft on Law'n order. Especially with the amendments to LOWER the age in the pipeline.
What ARE we? Why do we do this to the most vulnerable and the future citizens of our fair isle? How do we break the cycle?
When will we bring civics, rights and responsibilities into our schools? When will basic parenting be part of the curriculum that includes basic information of the damage that continuing to allow males (especially) to whack a child, or to understand that a crying child needs comfort not abuse to quieten down?
The referendum result and all the above are part of a continuum that desperately needs addressing.
Jeez, our future kids deserve it but future parents of this country need it.
-
Smack addiction...
just where did our love go?
in(sane) loco parentis
and the hits keep coming...yrs lightly
The Supreme Being
aka Duane Untwothers -
Smacking may be used for the purpose of correction
If that goes through I know 2 million NZ voters that need a bit of correcting. Will baseball bats be allowed?
-
I've been busted for speeding a few times. But I've never had a criminal conviction for it. I would certainly oppose a law that made light speeding a criminal offense, whether or not it gave the cops discretion to decide whether they like me enough not to bust me.
Motoring offences *are* criminal offences, like all others. They can be dealt with through a fixed penalty (as is usual for speeding) or through the courts. You could be prosecuted for driving at 101kph in a 100 limit, for instance.
Such offences, particularly when dealt with as infringements, are not regarded by various authorities as a character issue for immigration and employment. That's their decision, and they are still offences.
-
Motoring offences *are* criminal offences, like all others.
Speeding is illegal. Speeding is an offence. But it is not a crime. The definition of "crime" in the Crimes Act makes quite clear that this is not that case.
Our law has a basic hierarchy - infringement offences, summary offences, and indictable offences/crimes. There is some overlap - infringement offences can sometimes be laid treated as summary offences, summary offences can sometimes be treated as indictable offences etc. But speeding is not a crime.
-
Rich, for a minute there I thought you said something about NZ vowels needing correction. :)
-
DexterX:
If “government” is capable of leadership it could harness the issue and lead it in the direction to create something right.
The problem could easily be solved in a matter of weeks with a good supply of railcars, and helicopters with long enough range to drop them in the middle of the Tasman Sea. Were it not for one not-so-small problem - such a policy would likely have its initiators on the next plane to the Hague for all the wrong reasons. With a high-security stay in the Milosevic Suite.
-
The people in society that deal with the end result of the “child abuse” should be involved in creating something that deconstructs "the abuse". Those are the people we (government) should listen to first on behalf of children and infants at risk.
But that happened. All the major child welfare agencies supported the law. "We" apparently chose not to listen to them.
-
In the last week or so three girls under the age of three have died - likely beaten to death.
Went through my head all last weekend.
"We" apparently chose not to listen to them.
Well, 88% of 54% of those who voted and a large selection who, it would seem, don't realise the consequence of the perception it would create, here and overseas, plus how the MSM could manipulate it. So back to square 1
-
I have a friend who works with child abuse, who gets around 300 referrals a day in this country. It is appalling.
-
Graeme, so would a "light smack as part of good parental correction" currently be a crime, or one of the lesser violations of law? What kind of punishments could arise from it, if the police (for whatever reason) decided to aggressively pursue a prosecution? It was suggested further up in this thread that it would not be considered a crime, in which case this referendum is not suggesting a repeal, but could have opened the door to an even more restrictive Act (if the Yes vote had got more than 12% and there was any chance of the government acting on it).
-
A new referendum question:
"Should a referendum that has been boycotted by many including both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition be able to have any influence in New Zealand?"
Yes, apparently.
-
To opt out is to not be heard. That's why answered the question that was asked. It wasn't hard, it wasn't really confusing…
I wouldn’t say the question was really confusing, just poorly worded. (Confer the hypothetical posed earlier in this thread: “should a smack as part of good husbandly correction be a criminal offence?”)
If that was the only problem one had with the question, then I agree it was probably not a good idea to not vote or to cast an invalid vote just based on that. However, if (as is the case with Craig) you are also against CIRs in general then not voting is a very understandable option.
…and the opinions on it don't seem very divided.
-
May I suggest a wee lie down old chap… that celebratory Baldock pic, his lunkhead mates on the piss, has negated your specious burble for this reader anyway.
-
…said burble being Ben Wilsons
-
STOP.............
Hammer time?
-
“should a smack as part of good husbandly correction be a criminal offence?”
Seems like an easy one. No good husbandly correction could include a smack, indeed to try it would be a criminal offense. That one would get an easy win for the "Yes" vote. I think a better demonstration of the incredible complexity of the referendum question might be required.
Tell that to Bob and Larry.
They're divided on what to do about it. They're not divided on what the answer to the referendum question was. That one's come in pretty decisively. Which kind of suggests people didn't struggle to understand what it meant.
-
OK, how the referendum question was "confusing" to me:
The question was: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence?"
"Should a smack - -"
First of all, what defines a smack? The word smack is really just a nicer way of saying hit, because to say hit implies something more forceful and that would go down the road of assault, something the framers of this question insist they have nothing to do with. There is a clear implication currently in our society that smacking = okay, hitting = bad. This exact same question with the word "hit" instead of "smack" would probably have seen quite a different outcome.
The definition found online for smack is:
- slap: a blow from a flat object (as an open hand)
- deliver a hard blow to; "The teacher smacked the student who had misbehaved"Definition for hit:
- deal a blow to, either with the hand or with an instrument; "He hit her hard in the face"But before the amendment and continuing today, people have shown they don't know the difference between a smack and a hit because they have been let off for using more than an open hand. One man's smack is another's hit. And now the organiser of the question is saying wooden spoons should be okay, so obviously he sees that as a "smack".
Even if we accept that a smack is open hand only, how hard? Should it not leave a mark or bruise? Do we go back to the Rule of Thumb?
How you define a smack seems to be quite important to me, since if what the people want is the power to smack, then the exact definition of a smack needs to be written into any new law.
"- -as part of good parental correction- -"
Who says a smack is part of good parental correction? Certainly not Plunkett, Barnadoes, Women's Refuge, Unicef, various other expert organisations and lots of studies. This is an intentionally loaded question. They chose not to ask "Should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence?" because you see the word "good" and instinctually want to agree.
The question could've been "Is a smack part of good parental correction" and I would've answered no. If it was "Should smacking someone be a criminal offence" I would've answered yes.
"- - be a criminal offence?"
As far as I was aware, to hit (or smack) anyone was always a criminal offence - it was Section 59 that allowed a defence after the fact specific to children. So I felt the question - once you get past the loaded nature of it - was basically asking me something redundant.
Beside all that, everyone knew the question wasn't really about whether a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence, but it was a referendum on the recently amended Section 59, which a lot of people believe prevents them from smacking their kids, even if it doesn't in every case. So by voting no, you could be saying you don't think parents should go to jail for lightly smacking their child but want to keep the law as is because it is working, or you could be saying you want to law back the way it was, or you could be wanting to amend the law in some way.
The problem is, the question didn't ask what it's makers wanted it to ask because they knew they wouldn't have got such large support - namely, "Do you want to repeal the amendment to Section59?"
-
Nice post James.
Mad props.
-
can someone tell me what "parental correction" means?
putting a subjective qualification clause in a refurendum question ("good parental correction") makes the refurendum quite trivial and pointless, imo.
people will read into it what they want to. there is no way to discern what people understood the question to mean. James has elaborated on the problem with using a vague term such as "smack".
if the writers of the question really wanted to remove ambiguity, they could have asked: "Should assualting* a child be a criminal offence? *There is the legal definition of assault: ..."
but the writers wanted subjectiveness and ambiguity. in truckloads. so, a completely meaningless exercise was the result.
-
James, most assuredly a smack could be better defined. Your requests for clarity are just the start. If you go for the open hand, you could quibble about the meaning of 'blow'. Exactly what velocity is a blow? Does it matter just how much weight and follow through? What zones of contact would be allowed? Should a curved hand be allowed, must the child be stationary at the time, exactly how old are the children allowed to be, what warnings are required, what follow ups, exactly what situations call for it (that's going to be a tough one to keep under a page), how many smacks can be given during what time period, etc etc etc.
But you can't deny that "a light smack" is more specific than "reasonable force", which in the case of self defence can go as far in the law as actually killing someone. My understanding of the use of the word "reasonable" is basically a catch all for that which it is too difficult to specify. My feeling is that "no" voters are saying that it should be fairly explicit that it includes smacks, for the purposes of correction.
Who says a smack is part of good parental correction?
"No" voters, I guess, are saying it could be. At the very least, they're saying it's not a crime . Everyone had the opportunity to vote "Yes", putting it beyond a shadow of a doubt that correction is no excuse for smacking and that smacking would thus be a crime. But only 12% of the voters did. Could that mean the rest do have a shadow of doubt? I sure do.
it was Section 59 that allowed a defence after the fact specific to children. So I felt the question - once you get past the loaded nature of it - was basically asking me something redundant.
Hardly. It's asking about whether you feel that something that is a criminal offence in NZ should be. Something that is extremely commonplace, something that has happened to most people, something that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. For it to be a criminal offense is a relatively new thing and it was absolutely a very controversial call. It's not redundant to ask how you feel about something like that, unless you think that the opinion of NZers on what their laws should be is redundant. If you feel your opinion on the matter is redundant then fine, but I really don't think this is the case, otherwise you wouldn't bother to tell anyone what it is online.
The problem is, the question didn't ask what it's makers wanted it to ask because they knew they wouldn't have got such large support - namely, "Do you want to repeal the amendment to Section59?"
Yes, they lacked courage, and went for a more nuanced question. More fool them. They got an answer, but to a question that can be read more widely than a simple repeal. But no matter how you wriggle around you can't avoid the point that "no" voters believe 'correction' can warrant a smack, at least enough to mitigate the offense right out of any contention for being a Crime. This is in direct conflict with Section 59 Subsections 2 and 3.
Perhaps this is exactly how the laws would be interpreted anyway. If so, then this is a confirming vote. If not, this is a protest vote. Personally I don't know how they are or will be interpreted. I just know what I think they should be.
-
Hammer time?
Rofflenui
-
if the writers of the question really wanted to remove ambiguity, they could have asked: "Should assualting* a child be a criminal offence? *There is the legal definition of assault: ..."
but the writers wanted subjectiveness and ambiguity. in truckloads. so, a completely meaningless exercise was the result.
That would not have helped one little bit, because the writers want smacking back, and the way that is enabled is as an exception to the assault laws. They had to ask about smacks because that is what they want. I suggest that it's not a term most people have too much trouble with. Only people who actually want to misunderstand it can find ways to quibble over this. There is absolutely nothing in the way of an amendment which details in ludicrous detail exactly what a smack is. That might even be a good idea. The referendum was not asking about an exact wording of a legal document. It was asking for competent speakers of the language in NZ to answer as they saw fit. The details are for lawyers to tidy up, and if they don't take account of what NZers actually want in doing so, then this law will continue to be a sore spot.
-
Thanks for your reply, Ben. To be honest this entire debate (which, for me at least, has been going on for 2 years now) is really starting to tire me. I believe both sides ultimately want the same thing – an end to child abuse in New Zealand – but damn if it isn't frustrating coming to an answer we can both agree on.
I think what the entire debate boils down to is this – the experts say one thing, a fair chunk of the public believe the opposite. I tend to always side with the experts, whether it be corporal punishment, climate change, health, or causes of crime. I believe people better qualified than I should decide what the answer is, and our laws should reflect that. I can never go on anecdotal evidence like "I was smacked as kid and I turned out fine", or "I smack my kids and it works" because to me that's the same logic that allows psychics to make craploads of money. There's also my gut instinct that violence of any kind is abhorrent, but ultimately it really is a Science vs Belief argument for me.
-
I'm not sure even the experts think smacking should be a crime. They are pretty close to unanimous on it being much less effective than other techniques, though, when those techniques are executed properly. Whether the public agrees with that is not something the referendum dealt with. Perhaps they do.
I believe people better qualified than I should decide what the answer is, and our laws should reflect that. I can never go on anecdotal evidence like "I was smacked as kid and I turned out fine", or "I smack my kids and it works" because to me that's the same logic that allows psychics to make craploads of money.
When you're pitting yourself against the anecdotal evidence of one interlocutor, you've got an easy win. When you pit yourself against 88% of people who could be bothered answering, then you've got a problem. I totally disagree that issues of morality should be decided by experts, I have never had the slightest time for this point of view. There are no moral experts. When you make something a crime, it's become an issue of morality, rather than practicality.
There's also my gut instinct that violence of any kind is abhorrent, but ultimately it really is a Science vs Belief argument for me.
I respect your right to have a gut instinct but my own one disagrees very strongly with that. There are times for violence. This is not a question for science. It's Belief vs Belief.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.