Missed Point
Has anybody noticed that the review of changes to section 59 of the Crimes Act has missed the point entirely? The review tries to make out that the police are not using the law to persecute parents who lightly smack their children. This is probably true (though I should add “at the moment” here because who knows what a future socialist government might get up to). But the review misses the entire point of the anti-smacking bill, which was to reduce child abuse. Yet we have these statistics:
“There has been a big rise in the number of reports and convictions for assault on a child under 14 years. The number of recorded complaints of assault rose 69 per cent between 2006 and 2008, from 845 to 1429, and the number of convictions rose 64 per cent, from 158 to 259.
“There has also been a big rise in notifications to Child, Youth and Family for suspected cases of child abuse – up from 71,927 to 110,797 between 2006 and last year.
“Substantiated cases of abuse were up from 2274 to 2855 over the same period, but Mr Hughes said that did not mean more people were being dobbed in for smacking since most of the increase had been referrals from police. [emphasis mine]”
Now Larry Baldock is wrong when he says:
“the big increase in CYF notifications from police showed officers had been wasting their time checking parents.”
Nope. While it is possible that the big increase in police notifying CYFS represents the minor cases that they don’t want to spend time on (very likely), the really interesting figures are that the conviction rate rose by 64% while the ratio of complaints to convictions remain fairly static (fell from 18.7% to 18.1%). Yet the number referred to CYFS (minor cases) rose by 54% and most were from the police. This tells us that it is likely that the rise in convictions is not because more people are being “dobbed in” but because there are more cases of child abuse. If “dobbing in” was a significant factor, one would expect a sharp rise in minor reports and a drop in the ratio of complaints to convictions.
It is MacDoctor’s theory that the anti-smacking legislation is causing parents (whose child-rearing skills were admittedly poor to start with) to not discipline their children at all. Toddlers quickly become unruly without defined boundaries. An out-of -control toddler combined with a parent with poor parenting skills is simply a recipe for abuse. It does not surprise me the the result of the repeal of section 59 is an increase in child abuse.
Of course, it was never about child abuse, just parental control.
Related posts:
- Missed The Point The Herald reports today that 39 “minor acts of physical...
- Still Not Working Apparently the case of the mother who beat her children...
- Defying Human Nature Helen Clark was right. When asked in 2005 if she wanted...
- Wow! *That* Worked! Today the police have blithely announced that 12 children were...
- Out of the Mouths of Babes… Readers of this blog will appreciate that I am fascinated by...
10 Comments
Leave A ReplyOne Trackback/Ping
- Online Sid That guy named Sid who is online a lot » Review of the anti-parental bill — [...] It’s been a bit quiet on this topic on the media lately. But apparently there was a review of ...
Nov 13 09 8:17 am
Yep, I had been wondering about the absence of news cover as to whether or not the changes to section 59 had actually reduced child abuse.
Good post MacDoctor, it’s disappointing this aspect hasn’t received wider coverage.
Nov 13 09 12:39 pm
But the review misses the entire point of the anti-smacking bill, which was to reduce child abuse.
Er, no. The entire point of the bill was to stop people who beat their children senseless from using Section 59 as a defence in court to assault charges. There were quite a number of notable cases of people getting off very serious charges by convincing a jury Section 59 have them the right to beat their children to a pulp.
poneke´s last blog ..Courts declare Global Warming a protected religion, while crucifixes are banned in Italian schools
Nov 13 09 3:04 pm
There were quite a number of notable cases of people getting off very serious charges by convincing a jury Section 59 have them the right to beat their children to a pulp.
How do you define “quite a number” – five, six or seven?
There were a handful of cases where juries may have got the verdict wrong. I was not there and have not read the transcripts. Have you? Many of there cases were greatly embellished by the anti-smacking fanatics. A 5mm piece of wood turned into a 4 by 2.
If the anti-smackers main motive was to stop more of these verdicts there would have accepted an amendment that would have banned the use of implements and any smack that would have left any mark.
The anti-smackers are driven by an ideology that says the state has primacy over how children are raised. This new law was the final straw for many. School counsellors were arranging for underage girls to go on the pill without parents being notified. When this fails they arrange an abortion again without parents being notified.
The issue for many is who has primacy in how children are raised their parents or the state.
Nov 13 09 5:59 pm
Poneke:
However you want to dress it up, the repeal of section 59 was presented to parliament as part of the war on child abuse. It was never introduced as a fix for a legal loophole.
You missed the point anyway. There is every indication that the repeal of section 59 is increasing child abuse. That is a bad result, whatever was originally intended.
Nov 13 09 8:01 pm
“An out-of -control toddler combined with a parent with poor parenting skills is simply a recipe for abuse.”
Yep, parents more likely to use physical discipline feel threatened by this legislation, so they don’t deal with misbehaviour properly when it happens, the result is the child’s behaviour keeps getting worse until the parent snaps, or feels far more severe measures than they’d usually use to correct the childs behaviour is required, those far more severe measures are abuse.
Something I, and others, predicted a year ago.
Nov 13 09 8:21 pm
MacDoctor, I do not think you produced evidence that the repeal of section 59 has increased child abuse but it is a valid theory.
I remember many years ago when I was in a single parents club one of the mothers did not believe in physical discipline. Her son was very undisciplined. I heard second hand from other mothers how she lost control and physically abused her boy. I got this second hand. Even if this is completely true this is anecdotal evidence that that supports your theory.
Nov 13 09 9:57 pm
Chuck: I do not think you produced evidence that the repeal of section 59 has increased child abuse
I certainly produced evidence. I don’t think it is conclusive evidence, but it is suggestive. You could argue that the increase in child abuse convictions is entirely due to increase reporting of offenses, but the fact that CYFS’ increase comes mostly from the police indicates otherwise. Another indicator would be the death rate from child abuse, which is entirely unrelated to reporting of offenses, of course. Unfortunately, I can’t find these stats except as five year blocks.
Nov 13 09 10:49 pm
“There were quite a number of notable cases of people getting off very serious charges by convincing a jury Section 59 have them the right to beat their children to a pulp.”
Care to give example of one such cases?
And do you know how many cases exactly where parents used correction as an excuse for assaulting their children and got away vs those that didn’t get away with their action?
I have asked this question to someone with law expertise and access to the information database. The answer is, only very very few, and they got away because the evidence weren’t convincing, not because they used ‘correction’ as excuse.
Nov 14 09 10:59 am
Of course, it was never about child abuse, just parental control.
I am inclined to agree with you. We all know what healthy and balanced personalities Sue Bradford and Herr Helen Clark have, and clearly they are eminently qualified to tell the rest of us how to raise our children.
Yet the number referred to CYFS (minor cases) rose by 54% and most were from the police. This tells us that it is likely that the rise in convictions is not because more people are being “dobbed in” but because there are more cases of child abuse.
I don’t see how you can reach this conclusion (although my brain has been fried this week). The increase in referrals from police may be due to an increase in the number of people being dobbed in to the police.
How do you feel about the state’s latest attempt to turn you into an unpaid policeman?
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/so-called-abused-children-to-go-onto-database/
Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..So-called abused children to go onto database
Nov 14 09 2:33 pm
KP: I don’t see how you can reach this conclusion
My reasoning is thus. The police are processing 69% more complaints yet CYFS is only processing 54% more complaints and most of these are from the police, rather than the public . This increase from the police is from domestic violence call-outs, rather than people dobbing in “smackers” (you can read that here). Thus little of the increase to CYFS is from private notifications of abuse. You can therefore assume that little of the increase in police cases is from increased “dobbing” but from actual increased abuse.
Bear in mind that unemployment stats often run in direct proportion to abuse stats, so this will account for some rise. However, I think the jump is far too high to be explained by unemployment alone. Hence I think this supports my theory that the repeal of section 59 has made abuse worse.
I think an urgent study into this should be done, before we destroy yet another generation of kids with our social experiments.