| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 100719 | 2009-06-18 08:16:00 | Smacking Referendum - User Pays | Twelvevolts (5457) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 783469 | 2009-06-30 08:59:00 | Nope - you forgot about the fact that clause 2 overrides clause 1, as stated in clause 3. Noting all of the above, I'd say it's pretty clear that smacking your children for the purpose of correction was legal before, and now isn't. If you can find any possible way to dispute that, I'd love to hear from you - as far as I can see, the legislation is pretty black and white and leaves no room for ambiguity. I'm not trying to find a way to justify smacking for correction. S 59 Clause 1 allows for prevention of disruptive behaviour. The Law Commission's view on whether this applies to "timeout" is in this link www.greens.org.nz |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 783470 | 2009-06-30 09:02:00 | I'm not trying to find a way to justify smacking for correction. S 59 Clause 1 allows for prevention of disruptive behaviour. The Law Commission's view on whether this applies to "timeout" is in this link www.greens.org.nz Aaah, gotcha. I thought you were trying to argue that the revised S59 was unrelated to correctional smacking, or didn't criminalise it, hence my above posts. And yes, the view you quote above is that forcefully removing a child to 'timeout' is a criminal offence: The opinion of Peter McKenzie QC Mr McKenzie concludes that under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill as proposed by Sue Bradford, carrying a child against his or her will to "time out" or a "naughty mat" will be a criminal act that exposes parents to prosecution for assault. This is because the redrafted defence in section 59(2) provides that "nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction". For most parents, it is said, a corrective purpose would be the dominant or indeed the only purpose for "time out". |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 783471 | 2009-06-30 09:26:00 | And yes, the view you quote above is that forcefully removing a child to 'timeout' is a criminal offence: You've quoted the view of a QC without reading the Law Commission's response to it. "We suggest that, in the vast majority of "time out" cases, parents will be prompted by a mix of motives, which may include prohibited correctional purposes, but in all likelihood will also include other permitted purposes. It is thus questionable whether in such cases a jury could ever properly convict a parent beyond reasonable doubt, which in turn may tell against the likelihood of prosecution." |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 783472 | 2009-06-30 09:38:00 | Methinks you're the one doing the running here - you haven't rebutted *any* of my points so far, and I have systematically demolished yours . Care to take mine on point-by-point? Edit: I see you've edited your post - yes, it's the result of the new law, because under the old one 'reasonable' force was legal . Now, any force at all is illegal . And the mere fact of having a referendum in this case is far more important than the outcome - just getting that many signatures means a massive proportion of the population are *very* pissed off about the law change! I only edited the post because another post was added in the middle and it didn't therefore make it clear I was replying to Metla . I'm not sure what points you've made I haven't responded to, responding line by line might seem systematic to you but you actually have to make a point, not just suggest I live overseas because I don't believe in spending nine million on a referendum . So the points you haven't refuted as far as far as I can see . 1 . The majority of people in this country don't believe 9 millions dollars is usefully being spent on this referendum . 2 . There doesn't appear to have been a single case taken by the Police since the act where a reasonable person would consider the act correction . (punching a child for example is not what most people think is reasonable) . 3 . The referendum won't change the law . 4 . The referendum is therefore a waste of money . The law was introduced by the Greens (I believe) but was supported by both the major political parties, that's called democracy . I don't know the exact voting pattern but a subsequent election and a new Government, and they still don't want collectively to repeal the law . I wasn't a fan of introducing this law and certainly don't believe reasonable parents should be arrested . The various examples given about agencies other than the Police are not really relevant, the Police enforce this law not Governement Departments . Whether or agencies act appropriately or not, they don't appear to do that under the authority of this act, and indeed the same complaints were made about them before . Those complaints may well be valid, you'd have to investigate each one to know, because people accused of wrong doing are likely to minimise their behaviour and seek sympathy under claims of wrong doing under the act . If this act doesn't work, I believe the political parties will want to change it . The stated reason they aren't doing this now is they haven't seen example of the fears you have about it becoming a reality . Like any law, it might not really be tested until someone is arrested who administered a light smack, but the way I read it such a case won't get very far, and if it does the law will get changed pretty quickly I'd suspect . |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 783473 | 2009-06-30 09:38:00 | You've quoted the view of a QC without reading the Law Commission's response to it. "We suggest that, in the vast majority of "time out" cases, parents will be prompted by a mix of motives, which may include prohibited correctional purposes, but in all likelihood will also include other permitted purposes. It is thus questionable whether in such cases a jury could ever properly convict a parent beyond reasonable doubt, which in turn may tell against the likelihood of prosecution." A jury can be fickle.... |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 783474 | 2009-06-30 10:05:00 | Please read what you wrote there as the same applies to you . Even if there wasn't one would that still be a good reason for keeping a stupid law . A law that was passed by the two main political parties and not repealed when the election changed the party/parties in power . That's democracy . There are plenty of stupid laws I'd imagine, do we want to spend nine million on each one?? |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 783475 | 2009-06-30 10:34:00 | This law has cost us untold more then 9 million, The people responsible for the cost are the ones who created the law. It makes no difference if the full weight of this law has been used, or if anyone has yet to suffer badly under the consequences, the fact is good honest people are saying they don't accept the government has the right to enact laws that are considered to be wrong,very wrong. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 783476 | 2009-06-30 10:59:00 | A law that was passed by the two main political parties and not repealed when the election changed the party/parties in power. That's democracy. There are plenty of stupid laws I'd imagine, do we want to spend nine million on each one?? All I want is for the govt to be bound by the referendums we have. It is absolutely stupid to have a referendum if it is not binding and quite frankly I don't think it is very democratic if the govt is not going to listen to what the people want. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 783477 | 2009-06-30 11:09:00 | This law, regardless of what may have been intended appears to have been followed by ever worsening child cruelty acts. That is what happened, not what was intended, or laid down in guidelines. The child abusers ignore the law and nothing will change that under the present or proposed legislation. Some children can and do abuse the "rights" that they are so vigorously informed of to the general detriment of all children. The solution is simple, no children permitted whatsoever for the next three generations. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 783478 | 2009-06-30 11:43:00 | The law worked as intended, It was never about the rights of children or their safety, It had nothing to do with worthy governance, It was all about guaranteeing the support of the green party so labour could stay in power,and pass more self-serving unwarranted laws while they continued to dig this country into a big freaking hole. | Metla (12) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||