Posts by dave crampton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OH and Peter, how on earth can the Parents maintain a S59 defence - the guys not a child. Great defence for repealing S59 you have there.
-
Russell, you`re being a bit silly.You have noted the article you linked to said said the woman did nothing to stop the assault. I wonder why, when she had just had her nose broken. You wrote
If I ....stood by while my partner committed a sustained bodily assault on him, I hope I'd have the moral sense to know I was wrong.
Actually, if you were a woman and had just had your nose broken by a male much bigger than yourself, let alone the spitting blood etc I'm sure you would have "stood by" when that same person was attacked by another - I doubt you would have intervened either.
-
Russell, I don't condone the mum standing there while her partner was beating up his stepson. I really don't. Im not htat mad. I have kidstoo and if my partner did what that guy did, I`d step in also. But CYFS have had thier hands in this family for too long now, and in some cases much of it is unneccesary. That must have had an effect, and thats what I was getting at. I don't blame CYFSs for the assault, and Ive just found out 5 mins ago that the kid was in the care of his father and have amended my post. I do liketo be accurate. NOw, off to cook tea
-
Russell, just seen your comment. This kid is not a child - he's is a minor and is criminally responsible for his actions as are his parents. So as a 16/17year old is legally responsible for his actions, its less OK for him to hit the living daylights out of his parents? Bullshit.I'm not saying that these parents are good parents, have never said that. Ever. Hey , the parents may be disastrous parents for all I know, especially the step father ( there, Ive said it... happy?) I blame CYFS, actually.They were bringing up this kid. Finally according to the media, the witness didnt witness any assaults but the step fathers.
-
I certainly don't think the teenager deserved his treatment from his father and I implied that in my blog post. However I also don't think that the parents deserved the treatment either and if it is good enough for one to be charge, its good enough for both.
Tony, I got my new info from the woman concerned today. theres nothing like getting information from the source, is there.
-
What Russell hasn't mentioned in his blog post is the following: The teenager (aged 16 or 17) was on a CYFS access visit. He punched his mother in the face and broke her nose prior to all this happening, resulting in his mother getting ACC. He was was charged with assault but Police decided not to pursue it and let him off with a formal warning, reasons of which are suppressed. Charges were laid against the mother but police withdrew the charges when they found out what her son had done, but the crown relaid them after what was most probably political and CYF pressures after the boy got his warning.
Russell has criticised the actions of both parents, but not the teenager. Why?
-
OK Russell seeing as you asked, heres something on the great New Zealand moral argument
Children are treated differently to adults in law - they cant have sex drive cars and get married. When they are small their parents clean their teeth. When they are older , they do it themselves. You know that.
However you ignore the fact that you don't discipline adults for correction. Parents have responsibility for their children. Parents do not have responsibility for their children who are adults. So the "corrective discipline" is the act. However, hypothetically, if we were in a society where parents correct their adult offspring for misbehaviour by smacking them on the bum or whatever ( covered by section 59, say), then the same laws would apply to kids
Adults don't get disciplined for correction by their parents
So, the act of smacking against a child in this context doesn't need to be sanctioned and compared with adult assault because the motivation for the physical contact is quite different.
So what am I saying thats new? Nothing really, so the moral issue irrelevant.
-
Russell it depends what you mean by the moral argument. If you mean whether is it right for people of faith to impose their moral precepts through law, unless there is public opinion to do so, as Sue has said in the past on the prostitution issue, well then, heh, notwithstanding public opinion on smacking, theres the other side to that argument which you will be aware of..
-
We need prosecutorial discretion to deal with fights on the rugby field because sometimes we want to use criminal law to sanction fighting on the rugby field. We never want to use criminal law to sanction a light smack.
It was not the express intent of parliament to criminalise all contact on the ruby field, but if the smacking bill goes through and it is not the express intent of Parliament to criminalise and convict all physical parental correction, hten the law does not reflect parliaments intent. So I go back to Parliaments intent. Don't have a law to criminalise a light smack if it is not Parliaments intent to ensure a criminal conviction for breaking the law in every case - particularly if most of the population and most of the politicians agree that there is nothing wrong with a light smack. I say most of the politicians as there are some politicians in Labour who refuse to vote on their conscience in case it upsets Helen.
-
Russell,
should Parliament be passing a law that it doesn't mind if it is broken? - ie: in this debate, if it is not the intention that parents should have a criminal conviction for lightly smacking kids, why make it against the law, irrespective of public opinion, merely to make a political point.
That is not democracy. Parliament should be making laws that people uphold, not laws that it doesn't mind if people break in some instances.