Consequences
In September 2008 I wrote this:
“Unfortunately, what this [the repeal of section 59] does to parents is place them in a position of having no clear idea what is an acceptable smack. Worse still, it allows children to threaten their parents, thereby seriously reducing their authority, even if the child has no intention of notifying the police.”
Yesterday, I blogged about the Deputy Police Commissioner seeking to suggest that police were being discrete. I said that he was missing the point.
Today, as if to emphasise my argument, we have this:
“A schoolbus driver was taken to court for grabbing the arm of a rowdy boy who would not stop pulling a girl’s hair.”
the sad fact remains that a substantial number of parents lack the skills to discipline their children in any way other than by smacking
”This case graphically illustrates the dangerous consequences of the repeal of section 59, as outlined in my original post quoted above. Here is an adult attempting to control an unruly child with minimum force who is then not merely threatened with police action or even simply questioned by police, but prosecuted for it. By all accounts his handling of the boy was reasonably restrained, not abusive and certainly justified. Yet the police still saw fit to drag him through the court process despite having so weak a case that the judge simply threw it out of court.
Note that in terms of the new section 59 (and section 48) of the crimes act , the driver was well within his rights to use reasonable force anyway. Here is the relevant part of Section 59:
““Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction. [emphasis mine]”
I would have said his actions fall under 1(a), (b), (c), and (d) and are not interpretable as being in any way “correction”. It would seem therefore that the police do not even know their own law. I other words, they were not merely not using their discretion but actively pursuing an obviously innocent man.
Stuff provides us with this scary addition to the story:
“The case had been referred by Gore police for diversion but it had been turned down by a senior officer, Mr McCorkindale said. [emphasis mine]”
So the local police were happy that this was a piece of nonsense (although they should have simply dropped it, after ascertaining the facts – “Diversion” implies guilt). But some silly twit in a senior position decided to prosecute an obviously meritless case. Said senior officer should be placed on traffic duties immediately – that is where officious prats really belong.
From this sorry episode we can see the inevitable consequences of criminalising even the slightest use of force over children.
- Children no longer have any incentive to respect adults. Why should they when they can enlist the police at the slightest hint of forceful coercion? Let us be clear here. I do not favour violence against children in any way. But there are certainly cases where using force against a child is the only way to ensure obedience. Particularly if the child in question is large and aggressive and doing actions that must be stopped. Note that this scenario has been rendered far more likely because section 59 has ensured that many parents now do not discipline their children at all.
- Police “discretion” is shown to be wholly inconsistent and dependent on the whim of the senior officer responsible. As I pointed out yesterday, this discretion is subject to the politicians in power and this event merely confirms this. Senior police officials inevitably enforce the political will of the times, although there is a certain lag between governments (due to the length of time cases take, but also due to the political nature of senior appointments).
- The worst consequence of this, though, is the inevitable backlash of adults being too afraid to administer any sort of restraint at all. Can you just imagine the state of school busses? Children will be allowed to run riot simply because no driver wants to be dragged through the time, stress and expense of a prosecution. Drivers will retire early and be hard to replace. School bus services will inevitably become more expensive to attract drivers with higher salaries. Magnify this effect throughout society. It is already obvious in education. How long before paediatric nurses and doctors decide they have had enough? How long before CYFS is overwhelmed with unruly, out-of-control children?
I realise this is an emotive debate for some people; that they find the use of any physical force against children repulsive. I have some sympathy for that view, but the sad fact remains that a substantial number of parents lack the skills to discipline their children in any way other than by smacking. This is partly due to lack of knowledge; but also due to lack of time and, it has to be admitted, inclination. Section 59 ensures that most of these parents do not discipline their children at all, or discipline them in an ineffectual manner. Add the fact that many of these parents are in the same risk groups for child abuse and criminality, and you have, in the repeal of section 59, a dangerous time-bomb set to explode traumatically in our near future.
And the saddest thing is that John Key, who is an intelligent man, will have seen this coming and ignored it, when he could so easily have changed it.
Smile and wave, boys…
Additional:
Additional input from Madeleine at M&M; Andrei at NZ Conservative; Whale Oil at Gotcha.
Related posts:
- Missed The Point The Herald reports today that 39 “minor acts of physical...
- Missed Point Has anybody noticed that the review of changes to section...
- Criminals John Key claims that, with respect to the anti-smacking bill,...
- Wow! *That* Worked! Today the police have blithely announced that 12 children were...
- Still Not Working Apparently the case of the mother who beat her children...
9 Comments
Leave A Reply2 Trackbacks/Pings
- Judge Abuses Child « Something should go here, maybe later. — [...] of the other takes on this incident from MacDoctor: 1. Children no longer have any incentive to respect ...
- McCorkindale case set sensible precedent « Homepaddock — [...] Macdcotor posts on consequences. [...]
Mar 6 10 9:57 pm
MacDoc,
Recently there have been 2 significant milestones in the field of smacking research that have thrown the arguments of anti-smackers in to disrepute. The article is here, http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669
The first study interviewed 2600 parents, and found that smacking kids between the ages of 2 and 6 produced benefits (including better academic achievement) and that smacking past 12 years of age produced negative results. Sounds obvious to me.
Then there is a review by the Akron University Law Review that examines the extensive child abuse research from Sweden since it implemented a ban on smacking in 1979. Found at: http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v42/docs/Fuller.pdf
Some of the conclusions of the review were,
- Child abuse has increased 5x since the anti-smacking ban was put in place. It was found that parents were unable to diffuse situations with light smacking, & that the child’s negative behaviour would often escalate until the parent was so worn down that they would snap and seriously beat their out-of-control child.
- Rates of violent attacks made by children have risen so much in Sweden that the Lonely Planet guide to this day advises tourists to avoid interacting with Swedish children!
- That in over 30 years of being unable to administer physical punishment, Swedish parents had still not found a suitable alternative to its use. These parents mostly were found to resort to yelling and screaming at their kids instead, or confining them.
- That of 155 smacking studies, only 30ish had any scientific rigour, and none of those showed that smacking was harmful unless performed on children 12 years or older (rare- most parents stop after the child reaches 7 as it is no longer needed to gain compliance).
This is a frightening glimpse into what will become of NZ in the decades to come.
Mar 6 10 10:18 pm
Exactly so. Sweden is a very scary model to be following. As I have pointed out the consequences are entirely predictable. And in Sweden’s case, entirely verifiable.
I have done extensive searches through the smacking studies. NONE of the studies that show deleterious effects on children differentiate effectively between true child abuse and smacking, A recent New Zealand study that did found – surprise, surprise – that smacking caused NO increase in violent tendencies or criminality. Children who were smacked had no increase in mental health problems and appeared to socialise normally.
Many have passed off the increase in child abuse stats in Sweden as just “increased reporting”. While this may have been true initially, it is clear that increased reporting cannot possibly be the explanation for the continued steady increase in child abuse over the past 30 years.
Mar 6 10 10:31 pm
Yes MacDoc the Akron Law review mentions the NZ literature, mentions the reporting issue, mentions the main arguments against smacking kids, debunks all of them, and generally is the finest and most in-depth discussion of the issue I have ever read. It really is a milestone in the whole smacking debate I think, and everyone who can should read it.
Mar 6 10 11:54 pm
Think this is what you’re looking for.
.-= scrubone´s last blog ..It’s your Destiny =-.
Mar 7 10 3:01 am
John Key is not an intelligent man.
He may once have been such a thing, however he is now a politician and that means he is not capable of rational thought and long term planning. He is now only capable of bribing his way to and past the next election.
Police everywhere are respected less by such an idiot that forced this prosecution. Perhaps the idiot in question should be placed on school patrol duties for a year or so?
Mar 7 10 9:15 am
The solution is simple. If enough people vote ACT the law will be changed.
Mar 7 10 10:43 am
Trouble is that ACT has a few crazies in the ranks such as that Garrett with his voluntary sterilization idea, that he had to play down as ‘just an idea that I wanted to put up for discussion’. hmmm.
They are also wanting to fully liberalize abortion law in NZ, which would be a backwards step methinks, when all we need to do is properly enforce the existing law. Otherwise I agree with quite a number of their policies.
Mar 7 10 12:11 pm
“They are also wanting to fully liberalize abortion law in NZ”
That is news to me.
“Otherwise I agree with quite a number of their policies.”
Then why not join and you can make your views known and make a difference. You will never find a political party where you agree with all their policies. One thing I can say is that people who join ACT and are active in supporting ACT can have an influence.
Mar 7 10 1:10 pm
I will think about that. It’s a very tricky area. On one hand, liberalising abortion law would probably allow any pregnant mother to procure an abortion without going through a GP. This would increase the number of abortions over the 18000 we currently rack up per annum- A horrifying possibility.
On the other hand, the way that NZ society, the political system (the frequent passing of legislation without sufficient due diligence or buy-in from affected communities), and the medical establishment is going (the socialist, whanau ora route where doctors become drones who are an extension of childcare and govt reproductive policy for the general population, or they can’t be doctors anymore), I find it difficult to believe that the issue of abortion can be sufficiently addressed without trending towards the passing of significantly libertarian economic and social policy.
For the most part I hope this will wind back the numerous pushes in our society to eliminate all forms of freedom of conscience and also freedom of religion from the public square. This is already apparent from the recent efforts of Bill English’s wife to rescind the new NZMA guidelines stating that patients considering whether to keep their baby or not must be informed about abortion (but hypocritically, not the negative effects proven by recent NZ research) despite any personal reservations, pangs of conscience, or ‘religious beliefs’. In other words, stick to government policy or face censure by the NZMA.
Without a windback of socialist NZ legislation and guidelines, I think that not many NZers will have the strength to even bring up the question of abortion, so voting for ACT is tempting, though I am undecided.