Roughan on Smacking
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm by David FarrarJohn Roughan’s column on the smacking referendum is one I have to respond to:
There is something very creepy about this smacking referendum now arriving in the mail. What exactly do the citizens behind this initiative, men like Bob McCoskrie, mean by “good parental correction”?
Well for me it is being able to legally give your child a light smack on the hand or behind if they misbehave. Something probably 90% of parents have done – s0 how is that creepy?
Their publicity pretends they mean nothing more than the smack that an anxious or annoyed parent might use to stop or prevent dangerous or offensive behaviour. But that can’t be all they want because the law now expressly permits the use of parental force for exactly those purposes.
To prevent disruptive behaviour yes, but not to correct it. And that distinction is silly personally.
To cite one example. If you have told your child not to touch something, then it is legal to give them a smack on the hand if you are quick enough to do it as they try to touch it. That is preventing disruptive behaviour.
But if they have been fast enough to do it, it is illegal to them smack them on the hand a few second later as correction.
Delayed, systematic parental correction is the old-fashioned hiding. It was often called a “good hiding”.
That is what the recent amendment to the Crimes Act has criminalised. That, I suspect, is the “good parental correction” we are being asked to endorse in this referendum.
This is such a red herring. Almost everyone I know who does not like the current law, says they think the Borrows amendment would be a good outcome, rather than go back to the old law. The Borrows amendment would define “reasonable force” massively below a “good hiding”. It would exclude any use of an implement, anything that causes bruising, in fact anything where the effect is beyond trifling and transitory. And it would allow it for correctional purposes, as well as the other stuff such as preventing disruption etc.
Here is what many people do not know. The current law does not define what is reasonable for the purposes of preventing disruption. It does not rule out a whack in the head. If your child is screaming abuse at you, you could punch them to the ground and potentially claim that was reasonable force to prevent or stop the disruption. You could hit them with an implement and argue reasonable force.
You see the Bradford law did not change the definition of reasonable force from the old law – despite all the horror stories told. All it did was say you can no longer use reasonable force for correction, but can for preventing disruptive behaviour etc.
The Borrows amendment would provide far greater safeguard, as it would set the definition of reasonable force as low as possible and apply it to all situations.
Those who initiated the referendum know what the new law says. They know it permits reasonable force for all the preventive situations they are fond of citing.
They pretend it does not because they could not attract majority support for the restoration of the right to flog children. Don’t be deceived by them. Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Absolutely.
I think it is sad when invents motives for those you disagree with, rather than rationally debate the issue.
My challenge to John R would be to look closely at the Borrows amendment and then explain how this would be inferior to the current law.
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
People are not being dragged off to the jail cells. The law is working. I don’t understand what it is about our culture that makes it ok to hit kids. We need to change our fundamental acceptance of violence, protecting children is a key part of this.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Personally I think a good hiding is what is often called for and society in general would benefit from a restoration of the practice.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“I don’t understand what it is about our culture that makes it ok to hit kids. We need to change our fundamental acceptance of violence,”
Smacking is not hitting, it is discipline.
Vote:This anti violence ideology is infuriating, the advocates of it sit on their lofty self righteous perch hand wringing about their concern for humanity while the people who are murdering and bashing their children hide under their wings.
Maybe its time to define violence.
What is it?
Is it always bad?
Have we confused “criminal violence” with a descriptive word used for force?
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
People are not being dragged off to the jail cells.
No, but people are being dragged off to the court over petty incidents.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
.. and some of their kids are being dragged out of their houses under CYFS orders for no good reason at all.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“smacking is not hitting”
Are you serious! That’s ridiculous. Perhaps you should read the law now, and read the law as it was. In both instances it was illegal to hit a child to “discipline” them. The reasons for smacking a child were only allowed if it was to prevent them from harming themselves, others or engaging in criminal acts.
Besides, if we say smacking is “discipline” where do we draw the line? Where do we say that smack a on the hand and smack b with a snow globe are discipline? People are not being dragged off to jail. THAT is the point. However we no longer have the possibility of people getting off of charges for beating up their kids.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Kingi you say the law is working because people are not being dragged off to jail cells. However, kids are still being abused, which I think is a much more valid measure than you’ve presented, so I don’t think the law is working at all on that front.
Vote:Additionally, while parents are not being dragged off to jail, a significant number are being unduly brought to CYFS attention and this is a very very bad thing because there is a far higher incidence of damage to families (including death of children) due to CYFS getting it wrong than there ever was of parents being found innocent of abuse using the S59 defence. If I recall correctly there were TWO cases over the last decade where parents were acquitted (arguably) inappropriately by using the S59 defence. Neither involved death of the child, yet I have seen reports of cases where CYFS get involved resulting in death of children, as well as enormous detrimental impact to the family as a whole.
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
DPF said…
The current law does not define what is reasonable for the purposes of preventing disruption. It does not rule out a whack in the head. If your child is screaming abuse at you, you could punch them to the ground and potentially claim that was reasonable force to prevent or stop the disruption.
The following quote meant exactly what you’ve just said above DPF. Arbitrary & clearly undefined laws are non-objectives which lead to confusion. I often wondered sometimes if the anti-smacking crowd are indeed genuine or just argue for the sake of it. They see smacking/hitting/beating as the same thing.
Quote:
=====
#1) When men are caught in the trap of non-objective law, when their work, future and livelihood are at the mercy of a bureaucrat’s whim, when they have no way of knowing what unknown “influence” will crack down on them for which unspecified offense, fear becomes their basic motive, if they remain in the industry at all-and compromise, conformity, staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected of them. Independent thinking does not submit to bureaucratic edicts, originality does not follow “public policies,” integrity does not petition for a license, heroism is not fostered by fear, creative genius is not summoned forth at the point of a gun.
Non-objective law is the most effective weapon of human enslavement: its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves.
#2) That which cannot be formulated into an objective law, cannot be made the subject of legislation-not in a free country, not if we are to have “a government of laws and not of men.” An undefineable law is not a law, but merely a license for some men to rule others.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Rightnow, you raise valid points and I would respond with two points.
Firstly the repeal of s59 was not designed as a fix for child abuse. No single piece of legislation can be a silver bullet on this issue. It will take a wide variety of policy initiatives, community buy in, societal shifts in attitudes etc to have a real impact on child abuse in this country.
However, what this law does do is it starts the process in shifting people’s attitudes. A major problem with child abuse is of course this perception that parents know “whats best” for their children. We hesitate to intervene when we see things that aren’t blatantly abuse because we feel we may be overstepping the mark.
Secondly, I would ask you, what would you therefore suggest in terms of reducing child abuse? This repeal was not a silver bullet, and no one can expect it reasonably to have been such. However it was a step in the right direction in shifting our culture of violence.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
..I have said it once and I say it again..no one will tell me how to bring up my kids. If I decide a smack on the arse is warranted a smack on the arse they shall get .
Kingi..mind your own business….
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Why do these referendum people want to restrict physical correction to smacking, only? Why are they against the rights of parents to correct their children by administering a mild electric shock, by pulling out a small quantity of hair, or by twisting a limb in a way that causes short term discomfort but no lasting damage?
The referendum drafters are anti the rights of parents. That’s tantamount to communism, and a good reason to reject the referendum completely.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Starboard along your reasoning I suppose you think you have a right over your child. You “own” them is essentially what your statements imply.
Further, where would you again draw the line? When is your “decision” correct and not correct? Is it correct when you smack them once? What if you do it twenty times? Fifty? One hundred times? Did you lash out in anger, or solely with your mind on retribution for their act? The same problems arise when we talk of real child abuse, beating kids with jug cords, wooden spoons and snow globes. Was this decision correct in this case? Who determines this?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Kingi said…
Are you serious! That’s ridiculous. Perhaps you should read the law now, and read the law as it was. In both instances it was illegal to hit a child to “discipline” them.
Kingi, perhaps you should need to read up on logic before you assert contradictive propositions. Hitting is not the same as smacking. They differ in the degree of application of physical force. This degree becomes subjective and that should be a job of the courts to decide and not busybody, dogooders of the likes of Sue Bradford and yourself.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
kingi>Starboard along your reasoning I suppose you think you have a right over your child. You “own” them is essentially what your statements imply.
The referendum doesn’t go far enough in this regard. Men used to own their wives, and still do in many countries. Why can’t we go back to the good old days and allow men to correct their wives with a smack? After all, the divorce rate was much lower then, and is much lower today in Saudi Arabia, and so this good husbandly correction must have helped contribute to harmonious marriages.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Isn’t John Roughan the Assistant (emphasis on ass) Editor of the Herald?
Maybe he should keep his fingers to himself and just keep to selecting the freshest pro-Obummer pieces to put in the World section.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Kingi
Tell me if you think this was child abuse – and tell me if you think this struggling father deserved to end up in court?
“”I smacked her on the top of the leg and said, ‘Just listen to me, girl, just listen to me, for God’s sake!’ She didn’t.” The next day Jane went to the CYFS office and told them her father had smacked her. CYFS told the police and Jimmy was charged with assault. “I said, ‘You’ve got to be joking!”‘ says Jimmy, who had never smacked any of his children before. “I was totally shocked.” In court, he was convicted and discharged.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10586994
Do you believe he deserved this state and police interference in his normal family business – (and I’d also be interested in your views on the crowns role in the James Takamore case)
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Falafulu Fisi, your argument is a circular one.
Regardless of the force argument you seem to be peddling, a smack is a physical application of force (disregarding the degree of this force) on a child. Therefore it is the same as a hit. Who cares what word you use. I lol at the fact you are justifying a smack by saying the application of force used is reasonable enough to merit its use. I could use the same argument when smacking another adult, this doesn’t get me off the likelihood of charges does it. Why should one rule exist for adults and adults, and yet in the same context not with adults and children.
Comes down to the argument that parents “own” their children. Which I disagree with.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
“There is a widespread belief that the referendum is so ineptly drafted that it will be hard to find out what the country really wants, even once the results are in.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/2711455/SST-poll-Don-t-ban-smacking-outright
This poll is sort of interesting but it has a major flaw (unless I missed something) – it doesn’t differentiate between intervention smacking and punishment smacking.
For those that say the current version of the law is not preventing the worst of child abuse so it isn’t working – the old version didn’t prevent it either so changing back would surely not make any difference to that.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
You have no children eh Kingi..I can tell. My kids are my kids..I have sole control over them until they are 16. I will bring them up the way I want to. I have never beaten my kids.. nor would I .
Here is an example Kingi. Child sitting on floor..pulls cats tail…child told to not pull tail…child pulls cat tail again…child told again not to pull tail and I explain to him the reasons for child not to pull tail. Child pulls tail again…child is smacked on the arse and sent to bedroom. Child no longer pulls cat tail. Child knows boundary.
Quite simple really…and a stupid law tellin me not to is an ass and is to be ignored.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
patrick starr>Do you believe he deserved this state and police interference in his normal family business
The girl was 13 or 14. Most of the pro-smacking commenters here (in previous threads) have only advocated smacking for very small children.
Do you believe there should be an age beyond which parents aren’t allowed to smack their children? If so, what age should that be? Because the referendum doesn’t place any restriction on parents smacking children, so the assumption must be that this should be permitted at any age.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I don’t put any stock in media beat ups Patrick particularly from the right wing Herald. Clearly this man went through the judicial system was found guilty and discharged. It is not for me, without the facts of the case to judge for myself, to say that this was a good judgment or not.
Further I would say, if you don’t agree with “State and police interference”, when would you like this to happen? Does it take the child to be beaten to a pulp, clinging on to life, before you would deem it acceptable for the state to become involved? I would rather the state got involved at the first HINT of abuse, then too late.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
starboard>Child no longer pulls cat tail.
The example you mentioned is already allowed by the “preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour” clause of the current legislation.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
..you seem terribly confused Kingi between a smack on the bum and a punch in the head.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Kingi said…
I could use the same argument when smacking another adult, this doesn’t get me off the likelihood of charges does it. Why should one rule exist for adults and adults, and yet in the same context not with adults and children.
Kingi, again your argument is illogical.
Adults != Children (ie, Adults don’t equate or equal to children – completely different entities ; A!=B )
Adults think independently on their own, while children can’t. Children needs to be guided by adults, since they can’t live on their own and be expected to survive.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
A teacher complained to me about a ten year old that had kicked and hit five teachers, had to point out to him that this is what often follows theories of discipline. Some classrooms are places of chaos, little learning and a teacher’s nightmare.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I think the Borrows amendment is the best compromise to this issue. Nothing will be perfect, but that change is a little better than both the old and the new, and if it enables us to move on from this then that has to be a positive.
Then I would like to see more advocating for no smacking methods of discipline (that doesn’t mean excluding some smacking) – if you start to teach boundaries young enough (months old when you shouldn’t be smacking anyway) it can be very effective.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Starboard, I must agree with David in his analysis of the current law. I would say in response to your scenario, that I personally would not use physical intimidation to show that the pulling of the cat’s tail is wrong. That is just my opinion. I would say this sends a bad precedent to the child.
I am not confused about the difference. It is clear that a smack is not going to result in criminal prosecutions. What is concerning though is the similarity in arguments between those being spouted for the right to “Smack” children are the same or similar to those being used when wife battery was still legal. The same old arguments with the same results, more violence in our society towards those most vulnerable within it.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“particularly from the right wing Herald” LMFAO!
“Does it take the child to be beaten to a pulp, clinging on to life, before you would deem it acceptable for the state to become involved?”
Vote:You see there you cant see the difference. This man did not beat his child, he simply gave her a deserving smack on leg. The children that are beaten “beaten to a pulp” are not “clinging on to life” – they are usually dead – and criminalising every responsible parent through anti smacking laws is never going to stop the likes of Kahuis, Glassies, Whakarurus, Pokaias or Karaitiana-Matiahas being murdered.
August 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
LOL. Falafulu Fisi, did you really say this…
“Adults think independently on their own, while children can’t”.
You must think children are vegetables incapable of thought at all. So basically you are saying, children deserve less protection under the law then adults. The more vulnerable should get less protection. Now THAT is an illogical argument if I ever saw one.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
The arguments over what the law is actually supposed to mean is proof of what a fucking stupid piece of legislation it is.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Kingi, do you have children, and if you do, or if you did, would you consider them to be equal to the adults in having a say in how the household is to be run?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
As I said earlier Patrick, there is no silver bullet in solving the issue of child abuse. This legislation which removed the ability to use reasonable force as a justification, was a step in that direction. It was not meant to suddenly solve child abuse issues. No single piece of law can do this.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
You must think children are vegetables incapable of thought at all.
Nice ad hominem.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Andrew, this is not about whether or not children should say how a household is run. I am not equating children to adults in ALL ways. Rather merely in their rights to be protected under the law from physical violence.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
The pejorative comments from Roughan do not help constructive debate on this issue one iota. Is he deliberately disingenuous, or just plain fucking thick?
I have long debated that the fault did not lie with the original legislation, but with how it was interpreted in court. Why is (or was) it that one could poll 100 people eligible to sit on a jury about what is reasonable force, have 95+ of them (all of them?) agree that the use of implements such as riding crops or kettle cords is not within the bounds of reasonable force, yet select 12 of them to sit on a jury and then it’s OK. The problem then rested with the court system – either the juries or the directions given to them by judges.
I’m voting “No” in this referendum not because I necessarily want to smack kids, but because it’s a stupid piece of legislation.
Furthermore, I am getting increasing pissed off with comments from the “Yes” brigade who say the referendum is badly worded. It’s not, it’s quite clear if looked at dispassionately.
If the outcome is an overwhelming “No” vote will National have the courage to revisit the Borrows amendment? I hope so.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
@davidp The point made is not really about the age, and personally I have never smacked any of my children at that age, but I can certainly sympathise with that fathers situation. I would however support corporal punishment in schools, which is also around that age
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Kingi…answer the question …do you have children of your own ?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
As soon as I read his first line, I thought ‘bizzare and surreal. I read no further.
Any man who can descend to this sort of personal denigration should not be allowed anywhere near a newspaper.
What IS creepy is the fact that my daughter and my neighbor both are afraid to smack their kids in public for fear of being dobbed in by one of the know-all busybody bitches who thinks the sun shines out of the Labour Party’s arse.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Kingi, have you seen 5 year olds or other small children going to supermarket to do groceries on their own? Do you see 5 year olds renting flats and live there on their own? Do they cook for themselves? Do they drive to kindy on their own? You must be living in a fantasy island if you frequently see children doing all those sorts of things I have just listed above, which independent thinking adults do.
Now, do you see why I stated in my previous message that adults are not the same as children? There you are, logic with no contradiction.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Patrick my statement was not in relation to that particular case but instead to the issue of child abuse more broadly. It doesn’t detract from the argument more broadly, your positions seem to be reminiscent of an era long gone. Corporal punishment in schools? LOL. I suppose you would support the abolishing of the Youth Court, the DPB and free health care too.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
So in other words Kingi you are telling me the way I have disciplined my children, my father disciplined me, his father, etc etc, way back for countless generations was wrong and should be stopped? – is that what you’re saying about our culture?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Kingi, Legislation has always had the function of protecting children from physical violence (though it’s doubtful that it’s had much success) what you’re arguing is that the state ban any use of force by parents on children for the purposes of correction.
There were a couple of lawyers who were adamantly arguing on this site that a smack does not constitute violence the other day because violence is defined as “extreme physical force” so in applying the term to a smack you are either displaying ignorance or lying.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“Rather merely in their rights to be protected under the law from physical violence.”
Define physical violence, is it leading a kid to their bedroom, play fighting, contact sports?
Vote:This would be laughable if these people were not so damned entangled in our political system.
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Agreed Adolf
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
“Starboard along your reasoning I suppose you think you have a right over your child. You “own” them is essentially what your statements imply.”
Having authority over, is not the same as ownership, unless of coarse you are a communist, then the state has ownership of all under its authority.
Curious parallel?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
@ Patrick. I’m saying that this law repealed reasonable force as a justification for beating up a kid, and that that was a good thing.
@ Andrew. I’m arguing that the status quo is working, that there are parameters around which parents can prevent children from doing things harmful to themselves, others or acts which are criminal. Any area outside of this involves too many variables which are open to wide interpretation.
@ Shunda, should we therefore say that a smack is not application of force? If so, why can’t I smack another adult?
@ Whoever asked if I had children. That is my business.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“Patrick my statement was not in relation to that particular case”
ummm Kingi – my 4.52 response was not in relation to you either – it was responding to davidp, but as you’ve asked; “I suppose you would support the abolishing of the Youth Court, the DPB and free health care too”
Yes to abolishing youth court, DPB should be replaced by a social insurance taken out prior to pregnancy and keep free health care where it is
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Whoever asked if I had children. That is my business.
..thank you ..case closed.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Okay, lets get down to tin-tacks. DPF – what you think is not the law. The point is that a law change may give cover for people who believe
So can I ask, do you believe in that injunction? Personally, I oppose it. Violently.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
It’s our, business, Daddy. OURS.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“@ Patrick. I’m saying that this law repealed reasonable force as a justification for beating up a kid, and that that was a good thing”
Kingi – you didn’t answer my question; are you telling me our culture is wrong and should be stopped?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
This could all be solved by creating cattle prods that deliver a precise amount of pain to the child. We can vote on the appropriate amount of pain before correction becomes abuse. Electrical pain stimulation wouldn’t cause any lasting damage to the child.
Is there any problem with this suggestion?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“@ Shunda, should we therefore say that a smack is not application of force? ”
No, I am not afraid of politically incorrect buzz words, are you?
“If so, why can’t I smack another adult?”
Because you don’t have authority over another adult to modify behavior that you disagree with.
But relax. If your left wing colleagues gain control of NZ politics again, I am sure they could offer you a job in the state sector controlling the lives of others, so you may get your wish.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Patrick your culture? What exactly is your culture? I hope you don’t claim to represent an entire “culture”.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
@Ryan
Vote:excellent. The real bad little bastards could wear them as collars
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
“Whoever asked if I had children. That is my business.”
Can you believe this hypocritical sh!t?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Oi, I’m not kidding. Why would a pro-smacker have a problem with a small cattle prod for correctional purposes?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
So again Shunda, this belief you own your children. That the only way to “modify behaviour” is by physically “correcting” them.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
You could install them with an inhibitor that means you can’t deliver more than one correctional electrical discharge every 30 seconds, so it couldn’t be abused.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Yes Shunda, whether or not I want to say if I have kids IS my business. Doesn’t equate to this broader debate. I actually can’t believe how facetious that line of thinking is…
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“So again Shunda, this belief you own your children. ”
No, you are not listening, I have authority over my children not ownership. Are you saying that the state owns my children?
“That the only way to “modify behaviour” is by physically “correcting” them.”
No, but it is “a” way. Why would you suggest anyone thinks otherwise?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I think part of the debate around Bradford’s Bill is that she promoted it as being to stop the child beaters. Then the ‘anti-smackers’ continued to inflame the debate by calling any opposed to it ‘child-beaters’. As long as that continues then the conflation of Bradford’s Bill with being a remedy to child abuse will continue. I think this sentiment has framed the debate, that one side is loudly and irrationally labelling the other side child abusers, and is tantamount to admitting they don’t believe they can win the debate.
Vote:A silver bullet kingi? I can think of a number of measures that could be done that would alleviate child abuse. Mainly it would rely on outreach programmes which would be labour intensive and prone to the failings already evident in a few of our state services. Basically we’re getting our social services wrong now and need to fix them. Nothing I can think of proposing would be popular to lower socio-economic demographics or chardonnay socialists so I’d rather keep those particular opinions to myself.
I would like to point out though, that the definition of a smack is ‘to strike sharply and with a loud noise’ – at least that is the one I consider to be applicable to the referendum question. To me it also implies an open hand. If it is illegal for me doing this after my child has done something like break a window or hit their younger sibling, then I really think the law is an ass and needs to be changed. Logic would suggest defining reasonable force is the answer. I think once this referendum is counted and over 80% of respondents vote no (my personal prediction) that someone (maybe even me) could initiate another referendum proposing defining reasonable force. Alternatively someone like John Key could use some common sense and realise there is a faster, cheaper option for implementing such a change.
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“Yes Shunda, whether or not I want to say if I have kids IS my business. Doesn’t equate to this broader debate. I actually can’t believe how facetious that line of thinking is…”
Astonishing hypocrisy.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
My culture, if you read my 4.59 relates to my family, but in fact most other western families set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterises through many many generations.
I want to know if you are telling me this is wrong?
@ Shunda barunda “Can you believe this hypocritical sh!t?” …….. I know, its astounding isn’t it
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Yes, this was a crap column from Roughan to which I submitted a letter to the editor refutation yesterday.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Ryan, change the name from cattle prod for a start. I would also guess there may be differences in conductivity/resistance from person to person that may not make it viable. Additionally I think it is better for a parent to administer a smack with their own hand so they actually feel it themselves.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Kingi said…
I smack another adult?
You are it again. Man, can you reason or not? Adults don’t need to be guided, while children do. It is an assault to smack another adult, because they don’t need correction from another adult, since they can think independently. Adults know the external world on their own, unless you’re mental, then you need to be guided like small children. It is not assault to smack a child, because that is how they learn. Children are born to this world with no knowledge of the external world fact. They learn by various means, such as by self-discovery (unsupervised), learn by being taught (supervised), learn by a combination of the previous two mentioned (semi-supervised), learn by re-inforcement (rewards & penalty) and other forms of learning. Smacking falls in the category of Re-inforcement learning and supervised learning which is part of a good parenting.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Anti-smackers in lack-of-any-rational-argument shocker. Film at 11…
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Correction stick. Done.
No, wait. ROD. Correction Rod. I can see the tagline now.
As for the parent feeling it themselves, it wouldn’t be hard to make it zap the handle too.
The resistance from person to person could be a problem. Studies of child skin conductivity could provide an acceptable baseline. Still going to be a lot more precise than an open-hand slap.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
One thing I get sick of as a parent, especially when the children were younger, are holier than thou righteous parents who think their parenting techniques are superior to your own.
This whole smacking debate smells a bit like that to me. Holier than thou people who believe their ideas as to how to raise the next generation are superior to others, except that now, they want it codified in law, so that they can go along with their self righteous noses stuck in the air even higher.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Ryan, I was thinking about whether it could zap the parent as well, but then how hard is it for the parent to put on a rubber glove? The more I think about it the more it seems like something out of a futuristic sci-fi story. Perhaps you’re onto a money-maker
I don’t know that I would support it through legislation personally (unless you make me a shareholder).
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Perhaps there is a market among Old Testament christians. Call it ‘The Rod’ and have a sticker that says ‘As seen in The Bible’
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I was going to let this pass but it’s low hanging fruit;
Kingi (124) Vote: 1 1 Says:
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
So again Shunda, this belief you own your children. That the only way to “modify behaviour” is by physically “correcting” them.
1) It’s not a matter of ownership, it’s a matter of responsibility. As parents we are responsible for our children, to raise them and in respect of liability. I will always call my children ‘my children’ though, and in that respect they are mine.
Vote:2) ‘That the only way to’ – how many times have you ignored people saying this is not the only method they use? Why do you keep trying to argue using a blatant lie as your premise?
August 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
The article from Roughan was a disgrace, emotive and completely lacking in any semblance of reason. The majority of his articles are the same I find.
Vote:As for this whole debate, I sent my paper off yesterday. I have come to conclusion that there is no point trying to reason with the unreasonanble. The opponents of this referendum have no interest in anything other than muddying the waters and talking garbage. Time to ignore the rubbish, plsce the vote and let the politicians know what we think.
August 2nd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
“..What IS creepy is the fact that my daughter and my neighbor both are afraid to smack their kids in public for fear of being dobbed in by one of the know-all busybody bitches who thinks the sun shines out of the Labour Party’s arse…”
nah..!..what is creepy is your daughter and your neighbor miffed their smacking/hitting options have been curtailed..
..so..i presume you hit your daughter adolf..?
..why else would she think it ok..?..to hit/slap/smack small children..
..or anyone..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
and gee..!..what a surprise to see the starrs..and the shundas..
..all support retaining their ‘rights’/'entitlements’(?)..
..to hit children in their ‘care’..
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
make your kids proud and get a job ya loser
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
stop hitting children..starr..
..it all fits with yr twisted ‘property’/'ownership’ rightwing politics..
..eh..?
..you ‘own’ your children..
..therefor you have the ‘property-right’ to do what you choose..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
This article of Roughan’s is such a strawman. He cites some of the law, the bits that don’t refer to parental correction, and then sets them up as if they did and proceeds to bag all those opposed to the law from there!
Unbelievable what passes for journalism these days.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
you either have no memory left in that small brain of yours , or you’re now blind.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/general_debate_1_august_2009.html#comment-591415
(or more likely just not a man of your word)
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Patrick you know he can’t remember what happened 5 minutes ago let alone yesterday!
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
no starr..ignoring you dosen’t mean i don’t point out your idiocies..
..it just means i ignore you the rest of the time..
..(it’s the best of both worlds..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
so which do you think youre doing now?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
just clarifying the rules of non-engagement..
..(consider yrself back on ignore-function….now..!..
..tho’ i do deserve the right to laugh/jeer at will..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
How have you guys put up with him for 5000 posts?
I started like a week ago and he gives me headaches already haha.
Phil did you write your doctoral thesis using the same punctuation you do on kiwiblog?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“..(consider yrself back on ignore-function….now..!..”
why now?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Kingi (124) Vote: 1 18 Says:
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Starboard along your reasoning I suppose you think you have a right over your child. You “own” them is essentially what your statements imply.
Further, where would you again draw the line? When is your “decision” correct and not correct? Is it correct when you smack them once? What if you do it twenty times? Fifty? One hundred times? Did you lash out in anger, or solely with your mind on retribution for their act? The same problems arise when we talk of real child abuse, beating kids with jug cords, wooden spoons and snow globes. Was this decision correct in this case? Who determines this?
Kingi — we do ‘own’ them. If you are a parent, get used to that thought. We conceive them, we carry them in our bellies for 9 months, we give birth to them, we feed them, we care for them, we nourish them and we nurture them. We bring them up.
Vote:We instil in them our values, we teach them right and wrong. And so on and so on and so on.
WE, the parents do that.
And if in training our little darlings to be loving, balanced, self-disciplined human beings means they get a smack or a hiding, then that’s how it has to be. As another contributor here noted, sometimes it is the best thing to do. A smack or a hiding is the only thing that works. I don’t say it is the most enjoyable of experiences for a parent, but sometimes having to do the most unpleasant thing for our children’s good goes with the territory.
What will the anti-smackers want next? ‘Thou shalt not teach your child your religious values, because religion is evil.’ That’s not far-fetched. I understand there is a serious movement under way in Sweden and Denmark, and parts of German for that.
What next? A children’s ombudsman, to which a child can complain if little Bjorn or Helga doesn’t like what hour Mutti und Vati say is their bedtime.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
@nickb
I ignore him 99.99% of the time.
He’s irrelevant. He makes predictions that don’t occur. He hasn’t converted anyone to anti-capitalist veganism, nor has there been a flood of visitors to his website. He’s a sad, pathetic individual. But it would be cruel to cut him loose.
His posts are easily recognisable. I usually scroll down past them without slowing to assign negative karma.
Welcome to Kiwiblog anyway…
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Who is it?
His comments are unreadable. If you can read them, they are incomprehensible. If you can understand them, they are pointless. If they do have a point, they are wrong. If they are not wrong, they are a waste of time. QED: They are always a waste of time.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
“..nor has there been a flood of visitors to his website..”
gee..!..how to explain whoar.co.nz is in the top 1% of the blogs tracked by technorati..?
..that’d be all those non-visitors..?
btw..i idognore yr bug-pics..
..no particular reason..
..but i know where to find bug pics..if i feel i ever need them..
..eh…?
..(why don’t you post pictures of yr flower-arranging..?..or w.h.y..?
i mean..it is a politics-blog..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: Technorati says Whoar has an authority of five (ie five other blogs have linked to it in last six months) and rank of 612,580.]
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Haha thanks chtoniid. Are you a photographer or something? Seen a few of your posts in the general debate, nice.
For the record I will be voting no to the referendum. Gives CYFS and the police outrageous powers to persecute good parents, without doing a thing to stop real child abuse. Typical socialism, all show, no substance
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I personally find the argument by Pro-Yes campaigners that the CURRENT LAW is working fine and there is therefore no need for change completely ludicrous…
Vote:As a second year law student and a Legal support intern for the Manukau city law center I beg to differ with the backbone of that argument.
The president for the NZ Law society has made an official statement (which can be available on request) that underlines and supports the notion that since its passing two years previous there have been “no significant changes – both positively or negatively” by this amendment passing – this contradicts statements by John Key and the NZ Police that state that this amendment is working well.
It sits comfortably with studies completed in 2007 by Otago university scholars and the Christchurch school of medicine research that both conclude that there is no difference in outcomes between no smacking and moderate physical punishment. They both said, “It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences”. Both NZ reports are also backed by UNICEF’s 2007 report “An overview of child well-being in developed countries”.
As someone that has access to legal information regarding most child abuse cases that arrive through the doors of the Manukau city district court and the community law center again I would support the notion that it is misleading to imply that there is difference in outcomes between children disciplined with traditional discipline mechanisms and children who were “positively” disciplined. The MAJORITY of child abuse cases in Manukau city for example directly occur from alcohol-involved parents, particularly in broken families and where education is often shunned and ignored. If activists like Sue Bradford and Kingi were so passionate about the safety of NZ Children perhaps emphasis on the social issues identified above would be more appropiate for progress and results.
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I get the impression that most people here would think that was a good idea
if not why not ? solves all the problem inherent in defining a” light smack” ( on the hand or behind if they misbehave)
Mind you what if a light smack on the hand or behind if they misbehave doesn’t work ?
A larger smack perhaps?
With Ryan’s idea you could just turn the voltage up till it did the trick
The only thing that hitting teaches is that its ok to hit someone
Substitute hit for smack if you want to be pedantic
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
alan..are you sure you know how to drive a qed..?
..it seems a bit random/unconnected..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
@ Kingi
“Yes Shunda, whether or not I want to say if I have kids IS my business. Doesn’t equate to this broader debate. I actually can’t believe how facetious that line of thinking is…”
Quite obvious you do not have any kids Kingi, and if you did and did not smack your kids that would be your choice.
The fact remains however that a light smack on the hand or the bum by a parent for the purpose of correction is a no no
under the current law.
A lite smack is not the only tool in the tool box, but when it needs to be used it’s effective.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Kapital It appears you could have it a bit wrong. It seems one thing that not smacking teaches is that its ok to hit teachers
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10588168
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Kapital, you are Sue Bradford! All claim, no evidence
“The only thing that hitting teaches is that its ok to hit someone” – that’s an absurd proposition. Let’s say I hit you, would you think that was ok?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Nick- bit off topic but the photography is more a sideline business and partly an exercise in keping calm and balanced. But yeah, I do a bit of commercial photography (events, special occasions, portraiture) in both film and digital.
Without outlining operational details, I’m in fact an expert on illegal wildlife markets. Of late, it’s been the tiger black-market in China. So rather than pretending to be a greenie and getting the ‘warm glow’ of running a blog
I risk getting shot in smuggling hotspots… which is why I often have the desire to get back to a ‘calm and balanced’ place via photography back home.
Fwiw, I’ve thought you’ve made some good comments to date.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Hey Phlu, can you link to any evidence that technorati ranked you in the top 1%? I only ask because I thought I’d verify your claim and the way I read it you were actually in the bottom 1%. Alexa says the same thing
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Well, I don’t know if the parent feeling the smack is all that important for correctional purposes. Perhaps feeling the intensity of the smack in order to gauge if it’s too much or too litte, but with the Teach ‘Em Quick Stick™ that’s a concern of the past.
Besides, how hard is it for a parent to just use a wooden spoon?
With the Teach ‘Em Quick Stick™, you could have a range of settings, from minor infraction to severe endangerment, so the child has a clear understanding that they’ll get a small zap for minor naughtiness and a painful (but undamaging) zap for doing something dangerous.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Ryan, you know all this will teach children is that it’s ok to taser others!
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Kingi (124) Vote: 5 28 Says:
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“smacking is not hitting”
Are you serious! That’s ridiculous. Perhaps you should read the law now, and read the law as it was. In both instances it was illegal to hit a child to “discipline” them. The reasons for smacking a child were only allowed if it was to prevent them from harming themselves, others or engaging in criminal acts.
Besides, if we say smacking is “discipline” where do we draw the line? Where do we say that smack a on the hand and smack b with a snow globe are discipline? People are not being dragged off to jail. THAT is the point. However we no longer have the possibility of people getting off of charges for beating up their kids.:
Kingi: Are you kidding? No judge or, jury worth its pinch of salt, would ever allow any people getting off ‘beating’ their kids under the law. as it previously was. This matter is all about the government sticking its nose into the sacred ground of its people, and where they may have once gotten away with it, the power of the internet should give rise to governments the world over, to heed to the wishes of its people. Nowadays, it ignores them at their peril.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Fale Andrew Lesa makes a good point. Should we also be asking if the net effect of the removal of section 59 as a defense has been to move resources in child protection away from where they are desperately needed to where they are not?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I think the ‘NO’ lobby are pussy-footing around when they talk about a light smack. To be effective it has to hurt the child in no uncertain terms. I remember my headmaster giving me one or two hits with a gymshoe and it HURT. I also remember my handicraft teacher giving me six of what he thought was the best .. frankly it was a giggle. The single cane stroke that I got, twice, later in secondary school also hurt and taught me that if I stepped out of line I would not like the answer. I had been taught the limits which was an essential part of my education.
But for all that the greatest influence on me as a child were my guardians, I don’t remember them smacking me though I guess they did, by their example of how to behave. So the current law is an ass, contradictory as I read it. A smack/hit for the purposed of discipline is a good thing, done in anger/frustration at a childs behaviour, or preferably cold bloodedly following discussion/ talking to why it is being given.
But abuse, such as a clout around the head, likely to damage the brain, and other places on the body apart from the bottom should be against the law. Why our lawmakers cannot see such self evident truth is beyond me and makes me question what sort of fruit cakes we have in Parliament.
For the protection of the child I believe that physical discipline should be limited to smacking/hitting the child on the hand or bottom. Basically nature has designed the bottom to be hit and this should be the primary area for discipline. With limited exception for the smack/hit on the hand to deflect an unwise action.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Ok as you, were continue hitting away Noone is going to get through you sculls with a light smack
At least I don’t have to argue from your position
and prefer to be on the same side as the child welfare agencies and and associated professionals (nurses and paediatricians)l .
Can’t think why that would make feel better
Kiwiblog wingnuts or the Pediatric society of NZ difficult choice don’t you think?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“Basically nature has designed the bottom to be hit ‘
Vote:you lead a very boring life or maybe thinking about not
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
You mean you’ve realised you don’t have a rational argument yourself so will console yourself that some professionals who to date haven’t been able to solve the problem of child abuse are on your side.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
“It sits comfortably with studies completed in 2007 by Otago university scholars and the Christchurch school of medicine research that both conclude that there is no difference in outcomes between no smacking and moderate physical punishment. They both said, “It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences”.
There has never, on any thread on any blog, or any article I have read in a newspaper, been an attempt by the anti smackers to refute this scientific evidence.
Vote:This evidence is what we should be basing our laws on, not some wishy washy I know best crap from people, that quite frankly look like they eat children for breakfast.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
“The only thing that hitting teaches is that its ok to hit someone”
Where’s your evidence Kapital. Are you blind or just unbelievably stupid?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Shunda barunda (671) Vote: 1 0 Says:
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
“The only thing that hitting teaches is that its ok to hit someone”
Where’s your evidence Kapital. Are you blind or just unbelievably stupid?”
Shunda: I can only conclude that he is both. I was beaten by my parents in a way that would be illegal today. The only thing it taught me was not to do what I had done, ever again. Gee, funny that…
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Yes i am unbelievably stupid
Vote:And I think it is wrong and unnecessary to hit kids
It that makes me unbelievable stupid then stopid I b
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
The definition of ‘wrong’ to a socialist is that it should be illegal for everyone.
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“Yes i am unbelievably stupid
And I think it is wrong and unnecessary to hit kids
It that makes me unbelievable stupid then stopid I b”
But Kapital, I don’t have a problem with you being against smacking, I have a problem with others like you enshrining that position in law, against the latest research.
Vote:Would you agree that if the research shows smacking is not harmful, that it shouldn’t be banned?
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
[DPF: Technorati says Whoar has an authority of five (ie five other blogs have linked to it in last six months) and rank of 612,580.]
Haha. Top 0.89% eh? Whoar!
…eh?
Vote:August 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
“Would you agree that if the research shows smacking is not harmful, that it shouldn’t be banned?”
so we then ask
Would you agree that if research shows smacking is harmful it should be banned ?
If you are wrong you” may’ have screwed up kids
Vote:if I am wrong no real consequences, maybe a few parents that had to learn some other skills that they didn’t really need to
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
BTW I accept that I may be wrong
Vote:Don’t feel i can take that chance though on something that seems so obviously wrong
( and like you I can cite research to support my POV)
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
“Would you agree that if research shows smacking is harmful it should be banned ”
If you could prove that a smack on the hand or bottom was absolutely harmful, I would stop using it, I don’t “get off” on smacking my kids, despite what the sicko’s suggest.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
References
References:
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Baumrind, D. (1996). A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is not warranted by the data. Pediatrics, 98, 828-831. Baumrind, D. (1997). Necessary distinctions. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 176-229. Baumrind, D. (2001). Does causally relevant research support a blanket injunction against disciplinary spanking by parents? Invited address at the 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Retrieved from Internet on 23rd August, 2003 from http://ihd.berkeley.edu/baumrindpaper.pdf. Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowen, P. A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580-589. Czumbil, M. R., & Hyman, I. A. (1997). What happens when corporal punishment is legal? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 309-311. Durrant, J. E. (1999). Evaluating the success of Sweden’s corporal punishment ban. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 435-448. Field, A. P. (2003). Can meta-analysis be trusted? The Psychologist, 16(12), 642-645. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviours and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579. Ghate, D., & Daniels, A. (1997). Talking about my generation: a survey of 8-15 year olds growing up in the 1990’s. London: The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalisation of values: a reconceptualisation of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19. Grusec, J. E., & Kuczynski, L. (1980). Direction of effect in socialization: a comparison of the parents’ versus child’s behavior as determinants of disciplinary techniques. Developmental Psychology, 16, 1–9. Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of non-abusive and customary physical punishment by parents: an updated literature review. Clinical Child and family Psychology Review, 3, 199-221. Larzelere, R. E. (2000b). Child abuse in Sweden. Retrieved from Internet on 7th August, 2003 from http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden2.html. Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: a meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 1-37. Paolucci, E. O., & Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published research on the affective, cognitive and behavioural effects of corporal punishment. Journal of Psychology, 138, 197-221. Roberts, J. V. (2000b). Changing public attitudes towards corporal punishment: the effects of statutory reform in Sweden. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 1027-1035. Stoolmiller, M., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (1997). Parental discipline and child antisocial behaviour: a contingency-based theory and some methodological refinements. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 223-231. Straus, M. A. (2000). Corporal punishment of children and adult depression and suicidal ideation. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 59-77). New York: Cambridge University Press. Straus, M. A. (2003). Corporal punishment and academic achievement scores for young children: a longitudinal study. In M. A. Straus (Ed). The primordial violence: corporal punishment by parents, cognitive development, and crime. Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira Press. Retrieved from Internet on 7th August, 2003 from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/cp70mss.htm. Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: national data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55–70. Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761–767. Straus, M. A., & Yodanis, C. L. (1996). Corporal punishment in adolescence and physical assaults on spouses in later life: what accounts for the link? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 825-841. Ulman, A., Straus, M. A. (2000). Violence by children against mothers in relation to violence between parents and corporal punishment by parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 41-60. Youssef, R. M. & Attia, M. S. & Kamel, M, I. (1998). Children experiencing violence II: prevalence and determinants of corporal punishment in schools. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 975-985.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 am
lots of reading there
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 12:17 am
e Prospects For Change. Although spanking toddlers remains in the 90% or higher range, there has been a large reduction in CP of older children (Straus and Stewart 1999). Public attitudes are less and less favorable to CP (Straus 2001b; Straus and Mathur 1996). These changes suggest that now is the time to provide professionals who advise parents with the two key conclusions from research on CP. First, longitudinal studies show that CP tends to boomerang and increase the probability of the very things for which parents spank. Second, although CP works to secure compliance, it is not more effective than other modes of correcting and teaching children. Consequently, there is no need for parents to expose their children to the risk of the harmful side effects of CP. We are at a point in history when parents and professionals are likely to be ready to respond to a no-spanking recommendation based on the currently available scientific evidence.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 7:52 am
“We are at a point in history when parents and professionals are likely to be ready to respond to a no-spanking recommendation based on the currently available scientific evidence.”
This may well be so, in which case the use of intimidation and force against parents by the state is likely to be both destructive and unnecessary.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 am
Man, this is like reading an Israel vs Palestinian thread.
Round and round.
I agree with starboard – if I feel one of my little horrors needs a smack to correct behaviour then that will be applied. Hasn’t happened yet but I reserve the right.
Now if everyone gives phule some grief about being in the top 1% (snigger) hopefully he will throw one of his little performances and ban himself for a couple of months. Honestly it’s well worth the effort.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 am
Couldn’t agree with you more Andrew, Coercion by the state is A OK apparently.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
Meanwhile violence in schools escalates because teachers are denied the use of force to discipline. It’s only going to get worse, too. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10588168
Vote:You only have to look at behavior now and behaviour 20 years ago and ask why it’s so much worse. It’s because of the banning of corporal punishment.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 am
I blame the Homosexual Law Reform. And didn’t Halley’s Comet turn up around the time that behaviour got so much worse? Coincidence? I think not.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
Kapital said…
Does causally relevant research support a blanket injunction against disciplinary spanking by parents? Invited address at the 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association.
Hehe, Kapital. Psychological studies are mostly bullshit, because they rely heavily on multivariate statistical correlation. Believe me, because I am a data-analyst and I have worked with industrial psychologists before. I was contracted in 2007 to develop the multivariate regression software engine for JRA Ltd in Auckland where they specialize in Online Analytic Work Place Survey. Here is how multivariate analysis is done, if you don’t understand what it is:
An analyst, assumes that some predictor variables (causes), say N variables are very influential in determining a single response variable R, for example. N is an integer that is greater than 1 upto infinity. Lets say that N=4 for our simple example and our 4 predictor variables or 4 causes (variable names are arbitrary here) are:
W, X, Y, Z :
The task of the analyst with the aid of software is to regress R (dependent variable also called effect variable or response) against the supposed predictors (or causes), like the following:
R = a1*W + a2*X + a3*Y + a4*Z;
the coefficients {a1, a2, a3 , a4} are coefficients to be determined by the regression algorithm, which is up to the analyst to select a particular algorithm of his/her choice from the software that he/she uses, since there are many different types of regression algorithms that can be used and they only vary in their accuracy. The analyst, then applies hypothesis testing on the coefficients {a1, a2, a3 , a4} after its being calculated and see if which of the causes or the predictors {W, X, Y, Z} that are indeed influential on the effect (response) R. The hypothesis testing may conclude that on 3 of the supposed causes, say {W, X, Z} or {W, X, Y} or {W, Y, Z} for example are influential on R but not all 4. It may conclude that only 1 or the 4 is influential and the 3 of them are not.
Now can you see how bullshit is this ? The reason is that one analyst uses 4 variables while another analyst uses 15 variables and another one uses 30 variables and so on. There may be common variables in some of those 3 different analysts experiment or it could be complete different set from each other. See , one analyst may choose a predictor variable such as All Black’s winning record as as a direct cause of children’s tendency to throw a tantrum (response or effect) or another analyst may think that no, the All Black’s winning record is not a cause (or predictor) has no relevant to children’s tantrum, but he/she thinks that a better predictor (cause) is when the interest rates increases, then children are more likely to throw a tantrum.
Now, you can see how ridiculous of such blind belief in multivariate statistical hypothesis testing is that any variable or sets of predictor variables (causes) that is dreamed up by the analyst can be applied in the model. Any variable/s (cause/s or predictor/s) is/are deemed applicable even if it defies common sence.
Psychological studies (mostly bullshit) are often used by proponents of Nanny-state worshipers such as yourself & the likes of Sue Bradford to justify social engineering. Here is an excellent blog post from Not PC blog, taking snipes at psychological studies, which you should read:
A new study has found you shouldn’t believe every “new study”
A renowned scientist of recent history, Physics Nobelist , late Richard Feynman held psychology in low esteem, considering it at best a pseudo-science, and this was based on various meetings with different psychologists during his time as academic by observing the validity of their so called scientific methods. Feynman was right on the dot there in his assessment of psychology as a valid branch of science.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am
FF, that was a very long response. I would put the issues more succinctly.
Correlation is not causation. Poor correlations so common in social science mean very little. Samples are usually biased and not random selections and in any case risk factors are non uniform across the population. High cross-correlation between variables is common.
My experience assisting university students with statistical analyses was that psychology student have the greatest problems coping with them. They are not naturally mathematically inclined and their teachers were often spectacularly unhelpful.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Kingi, tries to argue that whether an anti-smacker has children is not relevant to the debate. Every time someone dies while tramping or some other activity like yachting you hear the experts saying what sort of new law we should introduce. It is obvious from some of the comments that those commenting have had little or no experience in what they are commenting on.
While I find it annoying that another parent wants to tell other parents how to raise their children I find it incredibly arrogant for those who have not had children to try and tell others how to raise their children.
I am talking in general terms. Someone can always find cases where anyone can see a parent is not doing their job properly like leaving young children in a car while the parents are in the pub.
I am talking about people without children thinking they know more about good parenting than 80% of parents.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
@Phool
Sigh, you sad, pathetic man. What makes you think I’d care about your response to my photo work?
I’m put up photos because I’m passionate about NZ’s nature. And I suspect there’s a few people here- irrespective of their political leanings who also appreciate what we have- if not the spiders
—–
Vote:But on the actual subject at hand, I’m trying decide if pissing off Sue Bradford is a good enough reason to vote “no”, or whether I should be above such things…
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Chthoniid, there is nothing wrong with adding a little pleasure to life.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The Burrows amendment that David Farrar refers to is the basis of my Private Members’ Bill to amend the current legislation.
It is intersting that John Key said this morning on breakfast TV that in opposition National supported the Burrows amendment and had National been in government this is what they would have passed into law. Well it is not too late. National can adopt my bill as a government bill.
Just as importantly was the poll result showing that a large proportion of the population intend to vote in the referendum, and vote NO. This is particularly intersting given all the effort that has gone into trying to discredit the referendum as misleading.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
John Boscawen 2:54 pm,
More power to you John.
Let’s hope John Key realises that a large part of the reason National was voted in, and that they currently remain high in the poles, is because of his and National’s stance [both implicit and explicit] prior to the election. John Key ignores the will of the people at his political peril.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Sue Bradford was on Willie Jackson show after the death of the Kahui twins. I caught the tail end of the show, there were a few more guests on. Willie Jackson asked Sue Bradford what she thought of the trial and she answered ” I didn’t follow it.” I looked at the tv astonished. She never looked at why those twins died yet she goes on about the reason for her antismacking bill was to reduce child abuse. This also shows her lack of concern for child abuse. She also made a statement about the confusion of the referendum and she gets on her high horse and writes a different law. What she didn’t say was that she had 28 days to object to the wording of the referendum but didn’t say anything. Sue Bradford is a true example of a walking hypocrite. This whole law was based on Fields getting ousted by labour and labour making back room deals with the greens to keep the majority. That is what this is all about. The greens are blatant communists and we have a referendum which bradford is fighting tooth and nail. If the results are what the poles say, then the people who want the anti smacking bill appealed will win because John Key cannot turn a blind eye to this.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I’m an anti-smacker as some will know. But let’s be clear…
1 I don’t believe the vast vast majority of those who smack are bad parents.
2 In fact many of my good friends do and they are very good parents.
3 I also was occasionally smacked as a child. I don’t believe it did me any long term (or even short term harm).
4 I also believe it won’t in the slightest affect those who are truly bad.
The issue to me is that if someone asks me if it’s ok to smack your kids then I will say no. Why? Because causing shock / pain to children is not something you need to do to raise them. I am very strict and would happily restrain my children if need be. But hitting them … seems wrong to me just as it does for hitting others unless for self defence.
But if I sit of a board (eg Government) and I have to work through priorities then this law change would be far far down the list.
Vote:August 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
How about we just do a search and replace of “smack” with “minor electric shock”. Both don’t leave a long term injury. Somehow if that was the question I would suspect the “majority” of “normal middle class parents” in New Zealand would be reacting a slightly different way.
Violence is violence, lets give kids the same rights as animals and fellow adults.
http://should-a.com/cache/etr3l9.jpg
Vote:August 4th, 2009 at 8:36 am
peter, since you are so against violence like us “normal middle class parents” why do these children die from child abuse? A light smack? no, it is much worse than that. But I am waiting for you to answer this question or Sue Bradford to answer the real cause of these 12 or 14 deaths since the law was passed. She hasn’t as I posted above, she truly doesn’t care or she would be on it like Heather Roy was but was outvoted.
Vote:August 4th, 2009 at 8:56 am
A lot of the studies done on smacking fail to distinguish the fact that children who are otherwise less likely to be a problem in later life are both more likely to have parents who don’t smack and are more likely to not attract smacking. *
This is a very difficult distintion to make because you have to list and factor out all those things (which is hard in itself) and you make various social statements that might encourage a backlash – for example if you were to use culture or income as one of those variables.
Vote:August 4th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Peterl,
Vote:But you can’t imprison a adult in their room (even for the number of minutes corresponding to their age) and you have to make sure they get at least minimum wage for doing work etc etc
And I presume that you dont actually want them to have completely equal rights.