Failing to protect
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reported at the weekend:
Making it a crime for adults to turn a blind eye to child abuse or neglect by others in their homes will help to prevent cases such as that of the Kahui twins, a child welfare advocate says.
Justice Minister Simon Power announced yesterday that the Government will make a raft of changes to child abuse laws, including a new offence of “failing to protect”.
It will make adults criminally liable if they do not intervene or tell the authorities that someone else in the house is abusing or neglecting a child or other “vulnerable” person, such as the elderly.
It is sad that this law is needed, but it is.
Related posts:
- The sterilisation debate
- Dom Post on child abuse white paper
- Big News in the Herald
- A drop in child abuse
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
It is indeed sad, though to be fair Child Abuse is hardly a new crime & dependent on the wording a law like this is very welcome.
I wonder if there will be protection in the law with regards protecting the rights of those who intervene, as some of these instances will be institutional & by implication such issues as job security come into play.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I think this law will be ass affective as Bradfords smacking law.
It will do nothing and its working the wrong end of the problem by simply expanding the blame anyway.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
It sounds laudable, but sadly I can’t see it making one iota of difference to our shameful child abuse stats.
It will join other recent legislative initiatives in that regard.
Edit – Murray, you beat me to it!
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I don’t think it is expanding the blame, it is trying to expand the responsibility, and that is what is needed. It may not catch many offenders directly but it makes it clear that opting out of responsibility is not reasonable behaviour.
Call it social conditioning if you like, there are quite a few people that could do with a good dose of shampoo and conditioner.
But if enough people say “oh no, that’s not going to work” then it won’t. And they will keep grizzling because no one else is fixing the problems.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Oh for the love of god what a load of leftist collective guilt bullshit. Changing the language doesn’t change the reality. Get another song.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
It is targeting collective guilt. That’s the point. Abuse often doesn’t happen in isolation.
What do you think is the right end of the problem Murray? And what do you think should be done about it?
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
This sounds absolutely ghastly – New Zealand is enough of a busybody society as it is without giving people legal obligations to stick their sticky beaks into other people’s problems.
It will do nothing to increase reportage of child abuse, and everything to interfere in people’s private lives. Large numbers of innocent people will be hurt, and the perpetrators will have a legal defence for it.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I would have thought that knowing about (assault/murder/manslaughter) and turning a blind eye to it made you an accessory to (assault/murder/manslaughter)? What does this new law do that those provisions do not?
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“…and the perpetrators will have a legal defence for it.” Which defence Blaire?
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Blair, are you suggesting that no one should have interfered in the private lives of the Kahui household, and the Glassie household? Innocent people weren’t just hurt, horrific injuries were inflicted and the kids were killed. All it might have needed was for one of numerous people to have the guts to speak up and stop it happening.
Instead it seems like they are going to get enough signs from the blind eye promoters that beating kids in their own homes should remain private.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
And here we go again…….
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
The reason it will have little effect is because the people involved have no regard for the law. Even the non-participating observers.
(Exactly the same as for Bradford/Key’s anti-parent bill.)
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
“is enough of a busybody society as it is without giving people legal obligations to stick their sticky beaks into other people’s problems.”
Good point Blair – we should all sit back while kids are being seriously injured, murdered, and sexually abused and then all complain that there are serious problems with this country. Quite frankly I find it alarming that people see this as nanny state. While the extension of omission in criminal law is always going to be contentious – surely requiring household members that reside in the same house as a child and know that they are at serious risk of being irreversibly damaged, or worse yet killed, is the sort of extension we could all agree on? If not, shame…
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
The Kahui’s who were not party to the assaults on those children didn’t give a fuck anyway. How will this help? Gross physical abuse is something that can often be seen but how about sexual abuse? If the wicked father/step-father/uncle is sexually abusing a kid in secret how is this law going to help?
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Brian – the law clearly requires knowledge of the abuse. So you’re right – it wont make any difference if no one else knows about it. BUt what if they do, are you saying that the law shouldn’t require them to speak up? You’d rather they keep quiet?
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Really, those with a conscience will report as they have always done, and for those without, or involved with or subject to abuse themselves will remain silent. It will change nothing. The only thing I can propose to end family violence is to license parents before birth, but that’s a whole other argument.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
NOt1tocommentoften – No, I would like them to do something about it. But proving that someone knew something and did nothing will be bloody hard. In the Kahui case the perps got off. Same in many of these cases as they close ranks. I fear that it may be a “feel good’ law that accomplishes nothing or next-to-nothing.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Roll on the Socialist Industry Agenda, we knew what’s behind the Anti Smacking and Child Abuse Law right from the start…
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Brian – surely difficulty in proving it isn’t a reason to say “nothing will work, why f*cken bother.” What do you suggest then Brian?
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Noone has the right to force unchosen obligations on anyone else.Of course a person ethically should report abuse to try and halt it but to hold a bystander responsible for the actions of others he just happens to witness doesn’t sit well with me…thats collectivist bullshit and we need to eliminate that from our society and replace it with individualism.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“thats collectivist bullshit and we need to eliminate that from our society and replace it with individualism” – and this sounds cliche as f*ck but what about the child that is harmed?
How are they supposed to conduct themselves as individuals when they are being mistreated and mishandled by those who are supposed to be caring for them?
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
James – This is not about holding bystanders responsible for someone else’s actions.
This is about holding bystanders (people who are not committing abuse but are involved, by their presence) responsible for their very OWN actions in choosing cowardice, under very particular circumstances when they damn well should do better.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Its about time a law like this has been implemented, or at least proposed.
For centuries violence on children has been ignored by one parent, both or even by non-biological care givers – this law ensures that they are also prosecuted by court of law for doing so – thus encouraging parents/caregivers to speak out more often.
Children expect adults in the home to take ownership of problems such as violence and abuse and when this breaks down and collapses – the children suffer with a continuation of violence, abuse and ill treatment, sometimes for their entire childhood and leading to social/physiological problems in the future.
For too long now parents and caregivers alike have had the legal freedom to look the other way and say “its not my problem”, living in denial is no longer protected by the law and this makes me a happy man.
As a law student I am humbled to see yet another law implemented, where it is needed most.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
More hypocrisy; I am sure this will not cover the most widespread neglect and abuse of children which is undertaken everyday by ignorant middle class parents….
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
So would that make it “technically” illegal for me to not report my wife when she smacks my child for correctional purposes… which is “technically” illegal too, even though it is “inconsquential” or up to police discretion.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
You might have to check the fine print Charlie, but I suspect that the smacking would have to be consequential enough to justify a prosecution/conviction for you to be potentially technically liable. And as with many things the police would use their discretion on that too, they would have to consider the blind eye blatant enough to have a reasonable chance of conviction.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Thanks Pete. So when Labour get in and need the greens support and direct the police (no need to change the law due to the fact it is pathetically written) to prosecute all instances of smacking, then both parents will be able to be prosecuted if a third party lays the complaint?
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
@ Charlie :->
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Can’t see that happening, the spotlight glares at any of those cases so they will be too scrutinised. No point in being paranoid about something that is unlikely to happen.
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I wouldn’t be so sure. 10 years ago people would have thought exactly the same thing about removing section 59, in fact Helen Clark was on the news only about 4 years ago saying how rediculous that would be. The point i’m trying to make is that you would technically breaking the law by living in the same house as someone who smacks their child for correctional purposes and does not report it to the police. You probably wouldn’t be prosecuted but you are breaking the law. The last government got rid of sedition due to the fact that it was a bad law that wasn’t needed, even though it was very very very rarely enforced (less so than cases of light smacking being investigated by the police).
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Pete, you’re arguing that the shitheads and arseholes who beat and kill their kids will now stop because there is a law requiring reporting. The simple point is that the shitheads and arseholes who beat and kill their kids, and also their family members, don’t give a shit about the law, and don’t give a shit about their obligations. If they did, they wouldn’t beat and kill for starters and they would report it irrespective of a law or not.
It’s that simple.
http://nominister.blogspot.com/2009/12/bad-parents-make-bad-kids-unless-we.html
Vote:December 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Charlie Brown, as I understand it you can’t be forced to testify against your spouse in NZ.
Vote:Also Pete has a point, there’s no need to worry about something unlikely to happen in our lifetimes, like Labour getting back into government.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Charlie- no. The offence only relates to serious injury, death or sexual assault. So a smack no. But if your wife is bashing the shit out of your kid – then yes. And if you have a problem with that then I have no issue calling you a sicko. Look at the Law Commission Report before casting conspiracy theories buddy…
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 6:14 am
You could worry about future governments doing all sorts of things. Act might force in a change so that three whacks and you’re out. National might privatise Justice, so money rules (even more). The Maori party might legalise utu. But I don’t worry about any of those things happening either.
I didn’t argue anything like that. But it’s a change that could help some kids sometimes. Especially if the general population gets behind it and makes it clear to some people that could make a difference that speaking out and acting is the right thing to do.
There is no one simple fix to a deepseated and complex problem. But anything that could help (that isn’t overbalanced by down sides) is worth a try, surely.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 6:44 am
Good Samaritan laws in the US and other countries.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 7:34 am
NOt1tocommentoften – OK, I havn’t read the bill and was judging it based on the blurb posted in the blog.
RightNow – You wouldn’t have to testify against your spouse, you would have to report your spouse to the police. And labour getting back into power is inevitable, and it is a real possibility that they will direct the police to prosecute light and inconsequential smacks without needing to change the law.
Depending on how the law is written, it could have some serious unintended consequences… unless the nats just do what they do and direct the police how to enforce it. Wouldn’t it be better for WINZ to be following up such welfare dependent households (eg, Kahui’s), and CYFs possibly taking the kids away. If a parent cannot feed, house, clothe a child for most of their whole life without welfare payments then I would argue that they are not fit parents… if you treated a dog that way the SPCA would take it of you, prosecute you and you would be banned from having a child again.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 8:09 am
Collective guilt is PC bullshit to shift the blame from those responsible to those that are not. The problem is bad parents, not the people that live next door to them.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 8:30 am
How about we cut out the middleman on this law – all adults deemed unfit to have children are sterilized.
Because lets face it this is the logical ending to this type of law…..
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 8:31 am
It is not shifting blame. Few if any people act in isolation of any other influence. Perpetrators of abuse are primarily responsible, but others often have secondary responsibility.
I don’t think it is aimed at neighbours – it’s more aimed at people in the same house, family members and friends. Those that should know what is happening isn’t right, could say something, could sometimes prevent worse from happening.
One of today’s problems is lack of wider family responsibility, and community responsibility. Family pressure (or tacit support), peer pressure and approval (or lack of disapproval), these can be influential things. Surely most of us should be promoting more individual and more joint responsibilities?
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
I just don’t believe you can legislate ethical behaviour. Good people do something when they see someone being abused. bad people don’t.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
Murray – you clearly haven’t read the Law Commision’s report and are bleating on about this on the basis of a newspaper article that does not represent what was recomended. The Report relates specifically to household members (and those in charge of residential care homes)- and not to all adults as this article suggests. So yes, it will apply to the parents – well pointed out. But it would only cover the neighbour if the court considered that the person was close enough so as to have done something – taking into account duration of visit, frequency, familial connecttion, etc.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
But I think there are a lot of people that can be nudged either way depending on influence and pressure.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
“all adults deemed unfit to have children”?! – all christians, gays, ethnic minorities? Come on LC – who would you steralise? What rubbish.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 am
I thought kiwiblog users were against government interference with how people bring up their children. Something about some referendum result that should have been binding?
Look at this poor guy sentenced to one year’s supervision for a disciplining his daughter for corrective purposes. Damn nanny state!
Vote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3188301/Father-rained-blows-on-daughter-for-swearing
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
In case anyone thinks you are being serious Tristan, and they don’t look at the article:
Damn interfering woman!
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 am
I doubt if they will make the law included social workers, police and Family Court Judges. I heard Coral Burrows’ father on the radio saying how he expressed his concerns to authorities before his daughter was murdered. His concerns were ignored.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
Geez, anybody would have thought I’d said it was okay not to interfere in criminal activity. That’s not what I said. The morality of interference/reportage in those circumstances is beyond question. The problem I see is that a “failure to report” law will not change the behaviour of those who do not report. What it will do is scare law-abiding Mum and Dad New Zealanders into reporting every raised voice they hear across their picket fences, creating a nuisance to people who may have just stubbed their toe on a table leg! It’s a stupid idea from the Nanny Nats that should not be entertained further.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
Brian Smaller (2224) Says:
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
I just don’t believe you can legislate ethical behaviour. Good people do something when they see someone being abused. bad people don’t.
Sorry to disagree Brian, What is law, but legislating ethical behaviour for a group?
Vote:I have to disagree, in that when we share common values we share common sense or behaviour.
That isn’t true for our society anymore is it?
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
BlairM
get some!
very good point.
The look the other way crowd will always be like that unless it affects them directly.
Vote:Our culture of police professionalism has contributed to this, in that when people do get involved the police suddenly aren’t their best friend!
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
tristanb – how does this story related to the proposed law… which concerns adults who live with someone who is being abused? The woman, a member of the public, challenging Paongo in this instance did exactly what I would have done. Good on her.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
BlaireM: What it will do is scare law-abiding Mum and Dad New Zealanders into reporting every raised voice they hear across their picket fences, creating a nuisance to people who may have just stubbed their toe on a table leg! It’s a stupid idea from the Nanny Nats that should not be entertained further.
The offence applies to household members for one. And two, the offence relates to risk of serious injury, death, or sexual assault. More than a shout would be required before a person in a house would be expected to do something.
I take it you haven’t read more than the Herald on this. Read the Commission report and don’t suspect that everyone is out to get you.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
The offence applies to household members for one. And two, the offence relates to risk of serious injury, death, or sexual assault. More than a shout would be required before a person in a house would be expected to do something.
I take it you haven’t read more than the Herald on this. Read the Commission report and don’t suspect that everyone is out to get you.
Point noted. (what if they really are all out to get me?!)
It still remains to argue whether this would save lives, and I simply don’t think it would. Sure, it might satisfy those who thought the Kahuis should have got prison time, but would it have saved the little boys? Not a hope.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
It still remains to argue whether this would save lives, and I simply don’t think it would.
And if it doesn’t save lives but punishes those who omit to put their hand up and speak out? Worthless?
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Yup, it’s a waste of time punishing people if the punishment poses no deterrent. Costs everybody else in tax dollars. May as well save the money.
Vote: