| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 92787 | 2008-08-23 02:50:00 | Govt. plans to delay referendum | Erayd (23) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 699557 | 2008-08-24 21:14:00 | Your right, They should be able to drive as well. That aside, Its always been illegal to assault children. I think the greens should get the insanity defence removed as well, In the past people have tried and failed to use it as an excuse. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 699558 | 2008-08-24 21:29:00 | Your right, They should be able to drive as well. Why should children not have the same recourse to the law as adults do when they are the victim of common assault? That aside, Its always been illegal to assault children. Why should children not have the same recourse to the law as adults do when they are the victim of common assault? I think the greens should get the insanity defence removed as well, In the past people have tried and failed to use it as an excuse. Why should children not have the same recourse to the law as adults do when they are the victim of common assault? |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 699559 | 2008-08-24 21:51:00 | Because some children require a stronger form of discipline.Perhaps not yours, and so far not mine, But that doesn't change the fact. End of story. I know you live in some airy-fairy magical wonder world where all issues are solved with a hug and a communal cry,and where people stick to limits when the reasons for them are explained to them in a nice way, the real world disagrees with you, and the proof is in the pudding so to speak, The moronic policies put forward by tree huggers and sissy boys are directly to blame for whats going on in our society right now. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 699560 | 2008-08-24 21:55:00 | Why should children not have the same recourse to the law as adults do when they are the victim of common assault?They do, and always have had, this recourse. What has been removed from the law in section 59 is a defense that allows 'reasonable' force to be used as a parenting tool. Generally this would mean enough force to give the child a bit of a shock, but not enough to have any lasting effect. Giving the child a long speech, or isolating it are not always the best solutions to a problem - the child may not understand, or the punishment may lose all sense of immediacy / connection to the act it was imposed for. Another possibility is that the child refuses to listen and / or comply. A light smack is quick, conveys the desired message, and then lets everyone get on with life. If any child is being hit hard enough to cause lasting trauma, then this is clearly assault, and would be prosecuted as such - the old section 59 would have been no defence against this. That version of the law was just fine when enforced properly, the new version does nothing whatsoever to prevent child abuse. That said... if anyone wants to debate the ethics of smacking, can we please do so in a new thread? I'd like to keep this one on-topic if possible, and the last thread we had on that topic ran on for several pages. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 699561 | 2008-08-24 22:32:00 | It is the nature of arguments to digress,to want to control direction smacks of control freacism. | Cicero (40) | ||
| 699562 | 2008-08-24 22:44:00 | Giving the child a long speech, or isolating it are not always the best solutions to a problem - the child may not understand, or the punishment may lose all sense of immediacy / connection to the act it was imposed for. Another possibility is that the child refuses to listen and / or comply. A light smack is quick, conveys the desired message, and then lets everyone get on with life. Are the police really prosecuting "light smacks" administered on the spot? I'm suspicious of the males wanting the right to administer "loving parental correction" as that sounds like getting a hiding when your father comes home. |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 699563 | 2008-08-24 22:51:00 | I'm suspicious of the males wanting the right to administer "loving parental correction" as that sounds like getting a hiding when your father comes home. Stopped me going off the rails even if half the time it was just the threat |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 699564 | 2008-08-24 23:21:00 | Stopped me going off the rails even if half the time it was just the threat I agree Gary, if it wasn’t for corporal punishment in schools, a no nonsense father and a local Bobby with size twelve boots, I’d have been in jail for sure. I have much to thank them for, getting me through those formative years. :D |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 699565 | 2008-08-25 07:57:00 | In those days you risked jail, now you would likely get NCEA credits and counselling. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 699566 | 2008-08-25 08:36:00 | In those days you risked jail, now you would likely get NCEA credits and counselling. Not like you pinkos to criticise your masters? |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||