I noted the judge who sentenced the father who smacked his child said, "While you may have gotten away with this in the past, it is a case of not now."
"Gotten away with..." suggests the action was wrong, even before the law change. Does that give you the impression the judge has a personal bias?
Bob Ekelund Remembered
17 minutes ago
16 comments:
Lindsay,
While I don't agree with the amendments to the act, I'm also no fan of child abuse.
If the smacks were enough to cause brusing and be photographed by the mother - which is reported that sounds like abuse to me.
Reasonable force doesn't leave brusing on a child.
I don't know if people should be jumping to the defense of everyone who gets caught up under this act.. as this sounds like a legit case if the facts as reported are correct.
mikee,
The smacks did not cause the bruising. That was not reported either so I dont know what you are reading into this.
If the facts that are reported are correct, best you interpret them as they are reported.
I thought the same Lindsay, rather crass of him ... but then they are appointed for their ability to make decisions within the law, not for their knowledge or wisdom about human behaviour.
... & I would have thought that 'reasonable force' was a situationally defined phenomenon ... I am surprised they are still together ... but I guess many relationships endure in the absence of a common view of acceptable behaviour, common goals & trust.
I have got the impression that maybe the police have been called to this father previously without taking any action.
Why else would the mother take the photo and despite her current pregnancy what is the marital relationship like?
I get the impression he is the father of all of their children but the whole thing is hard to follow.
Or...the couple are having marital problems and the mother has used this opportunity to lay the groundwork for custody of the kids..
It happens.
ehm, right. As far as I read the report, there was bruising, not from the smacking but from the father grabbing his son by the shoulder and hurling him onto the bed. Doing something like that to a twelve year old child (as a full grown man) is in itself quite detestable. I've heard people who oppose the smacking ban defend a slap to the hand - that is very different from grabbing a child and throwing it onto the bed. I guess grabbing and throwing goes far beyond smacking. And while the latter might(!) be debatable, the former is certainly not. It also seemed in the article that the man was convicted due to the bruises, not due to the smacking.
In addition, the article mentions that the man admitted to losing his temper. Losing your temper so much that you physically take it out on your child is not the right thing. If you teach your kid that getting physical whenever you lose your temper is alright - how do you expect that kid to behave at school?
A friend who is a retired primary school principal tells me that he had to be very careful with some families so that ill behaviour at school did not result in a thrashing for the child at home.
I am not defending the father as I don't know enough about the case. My comment was confined to the judge. If this judge thought the man's actions were beyond reasonable force the man couldn't have "gotten away with it" under the old law.
Um Dave,
You are completely incorrect.
" The prosecutor in the case, Sergeant Garry Wilson, said police evidence included photos of bruises on the boy’s shoulder and buttocks.
“It irritates me to hear about people being criminalised about light smacking. These were heavy smacks that had a traumatic effect on the child. And the family members were sufficiently concerned to contact police.
“The family have said that it wasn’t the first time,” he added.
The man, who pleaded guilty, told police that he had lost his temper and overreacted.
The boy’s mother was so concerned that she took photos of her son’s injuries and showed them to a relative, who contacted police."
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10477873
As I've said before, I think theres a place and a time for reasonable force. This force isn't reasonable and the guy is hardly a poster boy for whats wrong with the Act.
I think its very likely that there will be people wrongly accused under the act, and that these should be rightly criticised, but I'd hardly be jumping to the defense of someone how hurt their child so much that ended up with bruising on the poor kid.
I see why this couldn't have been handled under the old section 59? The jury could then have decided whether the force was reasonable or not.
I don't see why throwing a 12-year-old on the bed is detestable. We have far too many utopian people telling us what to do. Let's deal with the real world.
The fact of the matter is that our children are out-of-control now. If we can't smack them then they will run wild. 80% of New Zealanders understood this.
I say let's change the government, let's repeal this bad law and restore section 59, and let's find a place for Sue Bradford other than our House of Representatives.
Scott, do you honestly think that kids that are "out-of-control" will be cured by throwing them around? As I have said in a prior post, it just teaches them that those who are physically stronger are entitled to violence towards those who are physically weaker. And it is hard to get that out of your system.
Sometimes somepeople just need whacking...sorry but its a fact.
"Sometimes some people just need whacking...sorry but its a fact."
It's still not ok if the whacker is twice the size than the whackee. And who is to decide who needs whacking? What I don't like is the power difference in the parent-child relationship. Would you go around whack/smack your co-worker if he did something you didn't like? No. Why do it to a child?
It's still not ok if the whacker is twice the size than the whackee."
Why not?
"And who is to decide who needs whacking?"
I decide by using my reasoning facilty.
"What I don't like is the power difference in the parent-child relationship."
Too bad toots....thats nature.You want kids on an equal footing with their parents? Hello chaos and far worse violence and suffering.
"Would you go around whack/smack your co-worker if he did something you didn't like? No."
Ahh yes I would....depending on what it was.
"Why do it to a child?"
They sometimes need it for their own good.If the are to become decent functioning adults they require running face first into unpleasent consequences for their bad actions...have a look at the youngsters of today who haven't had a close encounter with pain and see the problem we are all having to dael with....no thanks.
James,
there are other consequences for misbehaving than smacking/hitting/shoving around/whatever you want. If the only thing you can think of is physical violence that's you problem.
As for the power difference - I am not opposed to that power difference per se, just to a misuse of it. I know that kids need rules and need to make the experience that they cannot get away with everything they do. But some time out in their room might be more helpful than a good whack, don't you think?
Lindsay - the Judge's comments were made at sentancing - when Judges often address the defendant in a casual and vernacular kind of language. i don't think that says anything about his ability to apply the law without undue bias. JM
Post a Comment