Should time out as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Time out is a tool for dealing with unwanted behaviour. So is a smack. Personally I never used time out nor particularly liked the idea. Do adults impose time out on each other? Sounds psychologically manipulative or cruel to me. But I don't think it should be a criminal offence. So I would have no difficulty answering this question.
Why is it so difficult to answer if I substitute 'a smack'? What is ambiguous about that?
If you don't like the thought of smacking and want it outlawed answer YES.
If you don't like the thought of smacking but don't want it outlawed answer NO.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
No, no! Time out is kidnapping and unlawful detention! The law must give children the same protection as adults! Vote Yes! Won't someone think of the children?!
We are thinking of the children, PM, sometimes discipline is good for them, and there is a world of difference between a smack and child abuse, but of course, the left just don't wan't to know, except for twisting the facts.
I agree with Lindsay that the question is fairly clear with respect to how to answer it, depending on your POV. The issue I have with the question is that it's seriously loaded.
You reap what you sow. If you smack your child, they'll grow up and smack someone. It might be their children, it might be their partner, it might be their friends, it might be neighbours or strangers. It might even be you, their parents, the ones who taught them how to react when things didn't go according to 'your story', and who showed them you can deal with emotions such as anger, frustration, shock, and fear by lashing out at someone else.
This isn't about being locked up for smacking your children (that hasn't happened in 2 years of the law being in place), it's about people being fearful of having to manage their own emotions.
Surely NZ will see through this shocking waste of $9 million dollars, which would be much better spent on campaigns to stop our world-leading record of child abuse, and send a strong message to all child abusers in NZ including the smackers.
Why are we wasting time? Why don't we just get the Government to set up a regime where we test parents, rate, barcode the back of the neck, and either allow or otherwise breeding to take place? There are medical devices which can be fitted which avoid pregnancy - we can mandate government doctor to fit those, & the courts can direct it upon the unwilling or unworthy.
Is it really an outrageous thought? Of course it is, but we invited it in when we invited the Government into our homes & our families.
"You reap what you sow. If you smack your child, they'll grow up and smack someone. It might be their children, it might be their partner, it might be their friends, it might be neighbours or"
the slippery slope theory was refuted by
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Longitudinal_Study
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3532/features/10321/show_me_the_child.html
The whole "confusing and ambiguous" meme is just propaganda to make the sheeple think the issue confusing - hence any vote either way can be discounted as "unreliable". Big Brother would have been proud.
As to it not addressing the actual law - it doesn't have to. It is there to send a message. John Key seems determined not to get that message which is worrying me more than a little bit.
You reap what you sow. If you smack your child, they'll grow up and smack someone
Nonsense. In fact corporal punishment has declined in New Zealand but there is more violence today, not less. People like Sue Bradford and her enablers don't have any idea how to address this problem so they indulge in wishful thinking instead.
You reap what you sow. If you smack your child, they'll grow up and smack someone.
Was there ever a wet liberal who didn't fancy themselves as an amateur pop psychologist? I suspect not...
"You reap what you sow. If you smack your child, they'll grow up and smack someone."
Arse.
"the slippery slope theory was refuted by
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Longitudinal_Study
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3532/features/10321/show_me_the_child.html"
Perhaps anonymous should try reading some real research articles from real psychological journals rather than quoting magazines and newspapers where they say things like:
"Groundbreaking New Zealand research has refuted thousands of international studies which claim that smacking children makes them more likely to become aggressive and antisocial."
and igonore that it is going against as the newspaper says "thousands of international studies". Perhaps instead of only paying attention to one research article that supports their belief in beating children they should try reading those other thousand international studies first.
PM: I had to laugh when you referred to me as a "wet liberal" - my family and friends would dispute your assessment of me. In fact, they'd probably dine out on that for years. You've missed the target with your description of me and missed my point.
Sus: Keep up that fantastic analysis.
And who ever it was that referenced journalists and rags to support their position, how about doing some of your own analysis or perhaps quoting reliable sources?
Dear anon, completely agree with you on that one. I had a lot of problems to relearn communication without resorting to physical violence. When you experience as a kid that it is ok to become violent in order to make your point you assume that you can do the same. It is very difficult to get that out of your system.
So it's not only wet liberals who fancy themselves as amateur psychologists? I do apologise.
Re "rags and journalists:" try actually reading the damn articles. This bit, for instance:
...the lead author of the physical punishment part of the Dunedin study, psychologist Jane Millichamp, said the project appeared to be the first long-term study in the world to separate out those who had merely been smacked with an open hand.
Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had "similar or even slightly better outcomes" than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.
"Study members in the 'smacking only' category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society," she said.
"I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids," she said.
"I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.
Do adults impose time out on each other?
Yes.
It's called prison.
Neo-girl
Hey Neo Girl
Time out should apparently be meted out in increasing amounts with increasing age.
Perhaps a similar approach with your 'time out' could be the next big populist law and order idea?
Perhaps you'd prefer "cock & bull" then, Anon?
Either way, your assertion is still rot.
Luggage, it sounds like what you received as a child was physical abuse, not "a smack as part of good parental correction", which is what this whole issue is about. I received that as a child and am the better for it, but can understand how physical abuse could have a negative effect on a person. There is a big difference between the two.
Post a Comment