Jurors mitigating anti-smacking law
March 20th, 2011 at 10:12 am by David FarrarSarah Harvey in the SST reports:
A JURY has set a new benchmark under the so-called “anti-smacking” legislation by acquitting a father even though he admitted tying his son to his wrist, shaving his hair off, and washing his mouth out with soap. …
The father and his new wife were found not guilty after a trial on 15 charges alleging cruelty against two children from his previous marriage. The children were aged 10 and under at the time.
The couple’s lawyer used Section 59 of the Crimes Act, the amendment championed by Bradford, as a defence.
The case tested the amendment and showed what a jury would allow in terms of “justified force” to prevent or minimise harm, or to stop the child engaging in “offensive or disruptive behaviour”.
Here’s the irony. If Sue Bradford has gone with the Borrows amendment, then the court case may have ended up differently. Bradford’s law bans any use of force for “correction” but allows “reasonable force” for other purposes such as preventing offensive or disruptive behaviour.
The Borrows amendment would have defined reasonable force for both correctional purposes, but also the other purposes such as preventing disruptive behaviour.
So this is an absolute own goal in my opinion.
“It is probably the worst thing I have ever done to my child, but I grabbed my tie that I wear for church and I tied his wrist to my wrist beside my bed so he couldn’t take off and go and kill himself,” the father told the Sunday Star-Times. “Then he did manage to loosen it, so I did tie it around his neck for only about 30 seconds. I admitted to those things in court, but given the circumstances and what I was trying to achieve – trying to stop him killing himself – I was found not guilty.”
He also gave his son a “number two” haircut to teach him a lesson after a couple of years of stealing from his parents.
He was found not guilty of the charges relating to those incidents, as well as incidents where he was accused of making his children have cold showers, and excessive time-outs. He said the charges were exaggerated, and in some cases fabricated, but admitted the tying, cutting the child’s hair and washing his mouth out.
The jury accepted the three acts happened, but the majority decided they were OK.
Here’s an interesting question. Under the proposed law changes by Simon Power, would these parents have been entitled to a trial bu jury? Depends on what the exact ahrges were I imagine.
Deanne Shilton, the lead juror in the case, contacted the Sunday Star-Times through a third party. She said she was “embarrassed to be a New Zealander” and felt awful for the couple for having to go through the case – particularly the heavily pregnant wife of the father, who was forced to climb several flights of stairs to court cells during any break.
Shilton said she contacted the couple after the case to say how embarrassed she felt. It was obvious to her from the start the couple should be acquitted. She said most, but not all, of the other jurors felt similarly. “Good decent parents trying to instil a sense of responsibility, honesty and integrity, as well as the action-consequence moral in their children have been put through a living hell for their efforts.” …
But Bradford said the incidents were abuse. “I’m not familiar with the details of the case but the sort of things you are talking about – to me they are all assaults against children. And I think it’s really sad that a jury would think that those kind of activities are acceptable.
Might I suggest that it is better to learn the details of the case, rather than just apply labels.
I don’t think anyone condones the listed activities as ideal parenting. But like the jury I would hestitate to turn the parents into criminals for their actions, considering how difficult it sounds like the children were.
But I also do wonder why were the children so disruptive? Look sometimes, a kid is just a “bad apple” and it is no fault of their family or environment. But sometimes kids can rebel against an overly harsh environment. At the end of the day, it is dangerous to make judgements from afar.
Related posts:
- Anti-smacking amendment proposed
- Roughan on Smacking
- Herald on anti-smacking law
- The anti-anti-smacking campaign
March 20th, 2011 at 10:19 am
On the assumption that the article correctly describes the charges, yes.
Child cruelty is a crime punishable by a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.
[DPF: Ta. I knew you would be the person to answer it
]
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Was Deanne Shilton making judgements based on the evidence then?
And this “Good decent parents trying to instil a sense of responsibility, honesty and integrity, as well as the action-consequence moral in their children have been put through a living hell for their efforts.” doesn’t actually mean the parents were not abusive. I’m not saying they were in this case, but the juror doesn’t quite seem to have a grasp of logic.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:30 am
Or was she making decisions based on a sense of sympathy?
“Deanne Shilton, the lead juror in the case, contacted the Sunday Star-Times through a third party. She said she was “embarrassed to be a New Zealander” and felt awful for the couple for having to go through the case – particularly the heavily pregnant wife of the father, who was forced to climb several flights of stairs to court cells during any break.”
And a predisposition to acquit:
“Shilton said she contacted the couple after the case to say how embarrassed she felt. It was obvious to her from the start the couple should be acquitted.”
Same question for the rest of the jury:
“She said most, but not all, of the other jurors felt similarly.”
if that’s the case.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:38 am
DPF: “Might I suggest that it is better to learn the details of the case, rather than just apply labels… At the end of the day, it is dangerous to make judgements from afar.”
Except, of course, to make the judgement that under another variant of the law the jury would likely have come to another decision, and then to apply the label of “own goal” as a result.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:53 am
If Parliament had supported Sue Bradford’s original Bill, which would have provided no defences for assaults on children that don’t exist for assaults on adults, this verdict would not have been one the law permitted. It is a perverse outcome, given the intention of Parliament, and one I hope the Police appeal.
The scariest bit is this:
That indicates her mind was made up before hearing all the evidence or the direction from the Judge on the law, and she would have acquitted regardless of the evidence and the law. Anyone whose position is predetermined in such a manner should not be on a jury.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:54 am
One might also say if John Key has gone with the Borrows amendment, then the court case may have ended up differently.
Key has broken his word on this law like he has on the foreshore and seabed legislation. He said if good parents were being prosecuted he would change the law. Good parents have been prosecuted as in the case of the musician in Christchurch.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Ha, those that haven’t been able or have never brought up their own kids to be nice citizens should go away and not have an opinion. Thank the Lord (and that’s really saying something(, that most of us that have managed to do that didn’t behave like Bradford when bringing up our kids. This is all about her own guilt complex not about child safety.
Fuck I can’t remember how many time’s my siblings and I got our mouths washed out with soap. Didn’t work as you can see and in this day altogether irrelevant, but the parent has to try. No amount of talking , naughty corners or bullshit stuff like that works with an irascible kid.
Good to see some people retain good sensible judgment. The alternative was a kid in CYPS care and into jail. That’s the normal track for these kids untamed.Destruction of families. All the usual lefties , progressive crap we have had a gutsful off.
Strike one for good parents.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Hey Toad question for you:
““I’m not familiar with the details of the case but the sort of things you are talking about – to me they are all assaults against children. And I think it’s really sad that a jury would think that those kind of activities are acceptable.”
Bradford admits she is ignorant but says they should have been convicted. Mind made up before the case is even hear much?
Explain you outright hypocracy or appologise. This isn’t an accusation of hypocracy, that is estabished. Just explain to us all once again why your socialist social engineering opinions based on not knowing the facts is morally superior to the will of jourers who were there listening to the evidence.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:35 am
This jury verdict is truly shocking and is going to embarrass New Zealand internationally. The child was tied up, humiliated and physically assaulted.
The Police must appeal as surely the verdict is, at minimum, contrary to the intention of the legislation, and/or contrary to the admitted facts.
However, and Graeme may be able to shed more light this, my understanding is that criminal trials don’t actually set precedents because they are determined on the facts of the case, and these are never the same in individual cases.
The post-trial statement by the lead juror shows the value of the American system where a juror is questioned prior to the case to determine their biases.
And our resident expert psychologist declares that some kids are just “born bad”. What a load of self-serving crap. He should wash his own mouth out with soap. Of course, if another adult restrained him, shaved his head and forced soap into his mouth, that would be assault under our law.
But the victim is a child, and the father is a churchgoer, so that’s all OK then.
[DPF: No one but you has used the phrase "born bad". I think you are projecting]
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Whaaa whhaaa whaa we didn’t get the result we want because everyone who doesn’t agree with is a redneck racist so the rules have to be changed so that we the interlectual elite minority can rule all others with a fre hand.
Get fucked fascist.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:44 am
1. The Police cannot appeal.
2. Criminal trials don’t set legal precedents. If someone else is charged with this in identical circumstances in the future, they can’t point to this verdict and say “what I did was lawful”. Criminal trials can set a sort of factual precedent – if people keep being acquitted for things like this, the police will become less and less likely to lay charges in such circumstances.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Another resounding success for Bradford. Two more parents hounded & probably impoverished by legal fees for the heinous crime of trying to do their best to bring up a couple of brats. Time to ditch every trace of this ill considered legislation & if absolutely necessary start again using that strange & seldom used commodity….common sense.
Bradford has probably long ago hung her ovaries out to dry & therefore has only memories of the trials of parenthood. Get the idealists out of the way & let today’s parents get on with the job.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Meanwhile in reality land bad parents continue to kill chilren and get away with it because the families stonewall the cops who are all sensitivity no one will state the problem for fear of being called a racist.
Bradfords law, like the greens is a useless horrible joke.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:55 am
As the evidence in the Coronial Inquest showed, this was demonstrably not the case. Members of the Kahui family were talking to the police from the very beginning.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:55 am
True, I took that meaning from your “bad apple” term. Perhaps you could tell us how a kid becomes a “bad apple”? If the kid is not “born bad” then surely something in the child’s environment shapes his behaviour? And does a kid being a “bad apple” justify gratuitous assault?
And can you explain why it’s OK do to those acts to a child, but not to an adult?
Graeme, thanks for that.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Who was convicted Graeme and why are assuming I was referring to that one case.
Luc explain why you think its ok to claim an action that has been legall tested an found to be acceptable as a gratuitious assult?
Are you familiy with New Zealands defamation laws because if I was the kids father I’d have a team of lawyers crawling up your leftist agenda ass with a microscope. But of couse you’re from the interlectual and moral elite so you’re not accountable are you.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
“no one will state the problem for fear of being called a racist. ”
Like no one will state the obvious when a homosexual paedophile ring is shut down and those found guilt in NZ get name suppression and non custodial sentences for fear of being called a homophobe.
If the anti smacking lot genuinely cared about children their would be an outcry how leniently these homosexual paedophiles are treated.
Have they friends in high places?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Luc, do you think it is okay to have consensual sex with a child?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
re: Bradford – methinks she doth protest too much.
In The Ethics Aristotle wrote, “men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.”
I have to wonder about that woman – whether this whole law change is Bradford overcompensating because of guilt from some self-perceived neglect in the way she raised her own kids? If so, she has no right to foist upon the rest of the country the over-the-top safeguards that she feels she should have applied to herself.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Murray, I would be happy to defend any action based on the published facts. Jury verdicts do not necessarily reflect the law.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
“That indicates her mind was made up before hearing all the evidence or the direction from the Judge on the law, and she would have acquitted regardless of the evidence and the law. Anyone whose position is predetermined in such a manner should not be on a jury.”
Toad, would you expect much more from a “jury of your peers”? Who else should not be allowed on a jury? Religious people? Beneficiaries? Skinheads? Accountants?
This is normal behaviour for non-legally trained persons who get asked to decide a case.
The lawyers are able to challenge prospective jurors. However removing all people who gravitate towards making judgements in their head before all evidence is presented, would probably not be possible without throwing out the concept of a jury trial. That leaves the defence, the prosecution and the judge. Which probably isn’t such a bad idea in the first place.
Oh how I remember the joys of jury duty. A group of us trying for hours to explain the meaning of “beyond reasonable doubt” to two fellow jurors who had long before made up their mindw that the accused was “dodgy, and probably guilty”.
Vote:All this at taxpayer expense too.
March 20th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
toad,
Again with the pathetic sight of you coming here because the Green Party censors all debate on its own blog.
Really, it’s demeaning.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
@Murray 11:30 am
Hey, the guy admitted washing his child’s mouth out with soap. That sort of degradation and humiliation should always lead to a conviction, whatever the circumstances, and whatever purported reason the parent may have had.
@Graeme Edgeler 11:44 am
Not even if they consider the Judge misdirected the jury as to the law? I thought they could if they considered that happened.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
@wat dabney 12:43 pm
No, just a few who repeatedly troll, threadjack or prefer to abuse rather than debate. Even Hurf Durf still gets to post there, although i see he’s walking a fine line.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Given that all punishment is likely to be unpleasant or humiliating (and often both), by what rule do you determine that any given punishment is bad enough to merit a criminal conviction?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Yeah I can see the world headlines now. It might even push Japan and Libya off the front page.
It is telling that the far-Left often attempts to use the vague threat of “international embarrassment” to influence local policy. They can’t wait for the day when the UN has veto powers over domestic laws.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
This argument is utter bullshit. Parent – child interactions are not the same as adult – adult interactions. Otherwise holding my 2nd old down, his wiping his arse and changing his nappy when he’d rather continue watching the Wiggles makes me guilty of sexual assault.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
None of us were there. None of were the parents trying to rein in and discipline a disobedient child.
None of us were pushed to the extent of trying anything out of desperation to stop a child from either going off the rails or straying further off the rails so that they ended up in the clutches of Child Youth and Family, or worse.
For those you who throw up your hands in horror at the verdict, and at the parents’ child-rearing practices, what would you have suggested they do?
Having one’s mouth washed out is humiliating. It happened to me, once, when I was 7. It was deserved, and the humiliation short-lived, as often humiliation is. I respected more my mother’s requirement about what language I used. In those days parents were expected to discipline their children and expect their children to behave themselves.
Sometimes humiliation can be good you — even a child — because it can make you see what you’re doing and because it can also make you see the effect of your behaviour on others.
Sometimes a child needs to be reminded that he or her is not the centre of the universe.
Someone posted that this verdict would embarrass New Zealand internationally. Really. Headlines in the New York Times, do you think? Tabloid Shock! Horror! Loathing! from Fleet St tabloids? The lead story on Al Jazeera? Or how about The Times of India? The Times of Zambia?
I don’t think so. ‘International’ are not so without blemish that we should care about what they think.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Mr Gronk
My understanding of the law is that it does not permit physical punishment.
James Stephenson, depends on the facts. Break his legs and you should be up for assault, but, probably,if you get the right jury, no problems.
QST
These cases do get noticed, don’t worry.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Bradfords law,Bradfords law, Bradfords law……..keep repeating .Blame the Greens.
Referendum ignored by National, National ignores the people.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
“No, just a few who repeatedly troll, threadjack or prefer to abuse rather than debate. ”
You know that’s a lie.
Why do you lie?
Why does the Green Party secretly censor its blog, giving the impression of participation whilst actually reducing it to a circle jerk of approved and officially sanctioned applauding seals?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Luc, it would seem that was the intent of Parliament. Maybe what we’re seeing here is a mild form of jury nullification. In any event, the revised Section 59 will be a dead letter if parents and guardians can get around it by saying that their intention was simply to stop the child from doing the same thing in the future.
For what it’s worth, I disagree with depriving parents of the legal right to use physical punishment. If nothing else, say a kid won’t stay in time out, or the naughty corner, or whatever it’s called in your house. Eventually, some form of physical force (or the threat of the same) would have to be used. I would rather have seen a beefed-up definition of what constituted “reasonable”; no doubt Graeme or another lawyer can correct me, but I suppose the problem with the old law was that it required twelve more or less randomly chosen adults to agree unanimously that a given use of force was not “reasonable in the circumstances”.
But I have to disagree with the idea that children should get the same legal protection from their parents as they would get from a random stranger, or as one adult might get from another (unrelated) adult. Chiefly because said random stranger isn’t at all responsible for raising the child to be a good member of the community, and doesn’t have to pay for the consequences of the child’s bad behaviour (well, except for those bits that the Government picks up the bill for). A parent, on the other hand, does have those responsibilities, and therefore needs to be suitably equipped under the law to discharge them. Unless you’re supposing that a parent’s first recourse should be to lay a complaint with the Police, and let the courts deal with his kid? (Oh, whoops, the child is under 10, or between 10 and 14 and hasn’t actually killed someone. Bit of a jurisdictional black hole there.)
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“It was obvious to her from the start the couple should be acquitted. She said most, but not all, of the other jurors felt similarly.”
Fuck! I hope she isnt on my jury if Im ever on trial.
Vote:Not going to comment on whether this is abuse or not, but that comment above just shows the massive issues with the jury system. Not that they needed pointed out.
March 20th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Bradford says that a parent shouldn’t punish a child if a policeman wouldn’t punish an adult in the same way.
She really thinks that children are like adults. Some say Sue is not stupid, but, I cannot see such a statement belonging to anyone with intelligence.
Maybe she will advocate that the next prime minister should be a child?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Murray points out:
I agree the “lead juror” (has NZ dropped “foreperson”?) was also predisposed in a particular direction prior to the trial… though the couple’s lawyer did a pretty poor job during voir dire (jury selection) if he didn’t pick that up.
But Bradford displays not just hypocrisy, but also complete hubris, in thinking her opinion right without even hearing the complete facts.
And talking of hypocrites, I wonder what Micael “I believe the children are our fuuutuuuure (except the ones with Aspergers)” Lhaws thinks of this? The “feral underclass indulging in a bit of typical recreational child abuse”, presumably. After all, it can’t matter to Micael that these ones happen to white, Christian, and all likelihood amongst the dwindling number who listen to his program can it? Because he would be screaming for blood if these parents were Maori.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
sssl.
Some things to many people are as obvious as the nose on your face. Its only after you have been brain whipped, socialized and universally educated that you cannot see.
Lost all common sense and sense of being.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Why don’t you email Laws with a nice email and ask him? you might be surprised. Still he gets paid for his ratings. You don’t, so if his ratings go down they will stop paying him.
Vote:He has the people (following) not you.
March 20th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Farrar says: “It is dangerous to make judgements from afar”, then invites the usual suspects to do precisely that, with predicable results.
Put together a jury to hear such a case and the result is a lottery. There are still many NZers who believe it is good parenting to hit, tie up and shave a child – bizarre, but true.
Rex, unless jury selection rules have changed since I last sat on a jury, there is no voir dire, only voir. Your name is called, you rise and walk towards the jury box. You can be challenged before you get there. The only information known to the defence is your age, address and occupation and appearance.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Viking
Vote:Juries are not suppose to make their minds up at the beginning of the case. I hope you arent on my jury either
March 20th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Viking2:
Gosh, do you have the t-shirt too?
He has 7,500 “following”, V2. About 0.17% of the “people” give a damn. I did better than that when I hosted talkback, FYI, but thanks for playing.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I’m pleased that the juror realized right from the start that the alleged actions should never be enough justify a criminal conviction regardless of whether they were proved at trial. Maybe this can be used as part of a publicity campaign to advise prospective jurors that they should just acquit anyone who would have been acquitted under the old law.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Don’t forget that neither the foreperson nor the rest of the jury would have known fully what this case was about until after they were sworn. Entirely possible they hadn’t even been told what the charges on the indictment were until the Crown prosecutor began his/her opening address.
“Bradford says that a parent shouldn’t punish a child if a policeman wouldn’t punish an adult in the same way. ”
What the hell does that mean? In what circumstances are the police allowed to punish any person, outside of infringement notices?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
He also gave his son a “number two” haircut to teach him a lesson after a couple of years of stealing from his parents.
He was found not guilty of the charges relating to those incidents, as well as incidents where he was accused of making his children have cold showers, and excessive time-outs. He said the charges were exaggerated, and in some cases fabricated, but admitted the tying, cutting the child’s hair and washing his mouth out.
So, Maggie, you would have tried to rectify and correct this child’s behaviour how?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Maggie:
Ahhhh, thanks. I’ve always opted for a trial before a judge alone, as I don’t trust juries for the very reasons apparent in this trial, so I’ve never actually dealt with jury selection in NZ. I based my assumption on an article written for the Denver Bar Association:
The “almost” confused me… if it were allowable, and I had to work with a jury, I’d definitely want to know as much as possible about them. But apologies to the lawyer I incorrectly criticised.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Rex, we only get the jury list a few days before the trial starts and rarely have the money for investigation. My habit, which is the same as my colleagues, is to read it and see if anyone I know is on it, and then SHOW it to the client to see if they know anyone on it. If either of us know anyone on the list then we tell the judge and they can be sent to another courtroom. If we don’t know anyone then we simply go on how they look and their occupation as to whether they get challenged.
Personally, I don’t like having teachers on the jury, but each to their own.
The Crown generally get the jury list before the defence and will pass it to the Police to run through the computer and check on whether any jurors have convictions, or if any other information comes up. This information is only passed to the defence if the Crown thinks that a juror’s conviction will incline them against the defence (i.e. almost never).
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
FE Smith:
Good grief… and no one has ever thought to remedy this considerable prosecutorial advantage? Why am I not surprised…
Assuming one did, would an investigator, paid by the defence, even be permitted to do so? And if so, would that extend to an interview with prospective jurors, or would that be seen as tantamount to intimidation?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Not that, I hope.
We don’t even know what the kid was doing, and this is a child (and siblings) under the age of 10. Please note that the law prohibits “the use of force for the purpose of correction.”
I would still like to know on what basis DPF decides children not yet 10 can be labelled “bad apples”.
And this fixation with Sue Bradford is pathetic and irrelevant. Labour took the bill over and joined forces with National to pass it.
You should be abusing your hero John Key for making it possible, not Bradford for introducing it.
Finally, I’m going to make an assumption here. I’m going assume the parent is European, because there is no way this verdict would have been delivered if the father happened to be Maori or Pasifika.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Having read your other posts, I’d expect nothing less. Typical far-Left tactics: smear the entire jury as racist, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Rex,
Some Christchurch based barristers tried a few years ago after a High Court judge down there gave a favourable ruling, however it was overturned in the CA and SC. To make that clear: the Supreme Court wants the Crown to have an advantage.
If the defence has the money to conduct an investigation into the jurors then there is no rule stopping them (from memory).
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
TW, I have brought up two children. My boy was never any problem, my girl was always getting herself into trouble.
When she was 12 we sat down and drew up a contract together. It contained my expectations of her and hers of me. We agreed therre would be consequences if either of us failed to meet the other’s expectations.
I have never hit either of my kids. I once was very close to belting my daughter till she stood in front of me, like teenagers do, daring me to hit her. I didn’t because I knew that once I did she held all the aces.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Is there anyone apart from certain people in the political beltway who thinks this law has prevented abuse in any way?
Deafening silence IMO.
You woulda thought Liarbore would have spent its political capital which was considerable on this issue, on something that actually achieved something, wouldn’t ya.
Oh that’s right, it did achieve something, a la lefty social engineering, by getting the state to come between a child and its parents, in a very intrusive ubiquitous manner. That was why you did it, wasn’t it.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
@F E Smith 2:54 pm
The foreperson of the jury in this case says: “It was obvious to her from the start the couple should be acquitted.”
That, presumably, means after hearing the prosecutor’s opening address but before hearing any evidence or direction from the Judge as to the law.
I’m not that familiar with criminal law – can you tell me what can/should a juror do if he/she holds a position on an issue that would predetermine his/her opinion on the verdict regardless of the evidence or the law? And is there any remedy if a juror later reveals a predetermined position on the verdict, as appears to be the case here?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
I have never hit either of my kids.
Many others haven’t also Maggie but why shouldn’t we all have that option? If a certain category of parent ever does it when they are angry why should that disqualify that option from being available to the rest of us? Who the hell are lefties or the govt, to tell us how to raise our kids?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
I’m encouraged that the last piece of the legal system which citizen joe average actually has ANY say in is still functioning in defiance of those that would tell us how to live our lives.
I congratulate the Jury for their verdict and hope the parents involved here are not so traumatised as to be unable to continue to parent effectively.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Toad and Luc were happy enough when the Waihopai three were acquitted after causing damage in excess of $1million and accepted the jury’s decision.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
FE Smith:
Nay, this surely cannot be the same judiciary which is riddled with such liberal bias that it needs “3 strikes” laws and regular spankings from a suburban conveyancer-turned Justice Minister to keep it in line?! Whose sopping wet Chief Justice was soundly (and unconstitutionally, but let’s not worry about niceties) remonstrated with by the said Minister for being so… well, sopping wet, in which his opposite numbe Lianne Dalziel was complicit by her silence?
Not that judiciary, surely. So where is this bench of right-thinking (in every sense of the word) jurists of which you speak?!
/sarcasm off
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
“That indicates her mind was made up before hearing all the evidence or the direction from the Judge on the law, and she would have acquitted regardless of the evidence and the law.”
Thats how you choose to interpret the jurors statement, Toad. A less biased person (i.e. one that isn’t looking to distract people from the startling stupidity of Bradford’s statement*) would read it as,
“I didnt think it was abuse from the very first details of the case that were presented, and nothing was said after that to change my mind.”
This is what humans do. They start to form opinions from the very beginning and then update their opinion with new information as it becomes available. That is why it is necessary to ask jurors to hear ALL the evidence before making their decision (which happened in this case), and why we go to such pains to make the beginning of the trial neutral with a slight favouring of innocence.
* It is actually Bradford that wanted the jury to convict on the basis of a “vibe” she got from the description of events she received from a third party. “I dont know the details but the jury should have convicted”. Brilliant.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Wow Kimble, thats a pretty interesting interpretation of
“It was obvious to her from the start the couple should be acquitted.”
Im glad we have unbiased people like you to clear these things up for us
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
I still cannot understand why anyone would ever want to hit their beloved child. And, if they do want to, do they want also to hit their mother, father, spouse?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words from the start by the Juroror the journalist. Perhaps she meant from the beginning of the juries retirement. We Don’t know but you are all jumping to conclusions based on second hand evidence written by a member of the MSM.
And when did any of them get it right?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
reid, it has made our children safer in public, at least. I’m not sure what evidence would satisfy you when you can deny even the most basic conclusions of our best climate scientists.
gooner, jury decisions must always be accepted as matters of fact, but that does not mean one can’t have an opinion about it.
But I’m a little confused by Graeme’s advice that the Police can’t appeal, see this: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10645612
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
FESmith.
Um if someone gave me a list of people that I needed to check out I would look at.
Facebook
U tube
google
Veda advantage.
Electoral role
Council Rates directory
and perhaps a few others. like papers past.
Amazing what you can learn in 10-15 minutes.
F. E. Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead | Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/F-E-Smith-1st-Earl-of-Birkenhead/108260435865744
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._E._Smith,_1st_Earl_of_Birkenhead
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
FES. I guess that’s not you but an interesting character non the less.
Of you Google fes nz then there are lots of references about yourself.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
It is a perverse outcome, given the intention of Parliament
Well, the intention of Helen Clark and John Key, backed up by their whips and as advised by Sir Geoffrey Palmer…
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
ssasttl, how else can you interpret it? She said “from the start”, not “from before the trial began”.
You have to WANT to see the second thing to make that interpretation.
You obviously did.
If you have an opinion about something and then see nothing to change your mind, does that mean that you pre-determined your decision? Obviously not.
Would that mean if you said, you could see from the start what the right decision was, that you pre-determined your decision? Of course not.
Pre-determination might be evident if there was a ‘single’ hold out, a hung jury. But there wasnt. So what do you have? All you have is a desire for there to be something, ANYTHING, to tarnish this decision.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
reid, think of the definition of bullying. A larger, more powerful human being using force against a smaller, weaker one to change some behaviour. A better definition of hitting a child is hard to find.
Does any parent who isn’t angry hit a child? Probably, but I cannot think of many more harmful cold blooded acts.
A parent who hits a child needs help. The child needs rescuing. The state has a role, no, a duty to step in and protect children.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
BeaB, the two are totally unrelated. No one wants to hurt their beloved child, but sometimes a little bit of discomfort can save a child in the future. Look at injections for inoculation, for example: parents let their children & babies go through this pain because it could save their lives later. It’s the same with smacking. Most parents don’t want to smack their child (hence the “this hurts me more than it hurts you” saying). But what if little Johnny has learned how to walk, the road is not far away and he won’t accept his parents instruction not to walk onto it. Sometimes a good smack is the only recourse.
And it’s not only a deterrent in a physical problem like that. If a child won’t be disciplined now, they often can’t be later in life, and go off the rails when they become teenage or adult. In that manner, you could say that NOT using physical punishment when it should be used is actually abuse.
I remember reading about a boy who’d been adopted by the nicest couple you could ever imagine; he was a bit of a wild kid and would often act up and smash things and nothing they could do would get through to him, so one day the father took him aside and told him that his behaviour was unacceptable that he loved him, and because he loved him, and would have to give him a spanking (which he did). Yes, it hurt for a few minutes, but the boy got to thinking – why would such a loving man who had never raised his hand to him before do this? And he realized it was because he did love him and it turned his life around and set him on the right track.
I’ve heard similar stories before as well – one from a friend who said that if he hadn’t been physically disciplined, he would have grown up into a right menace to society. Some kids won’t need it – we are all different – but some kids will.
Vote:As I said – if a child needs physical discipline and you don’t administer it, THAT is actually abuse. You’re setting the kid up to fall later in life when he finally gets into the real world and can’t come to terms with not getting his own way and he has no self-discipline and lashes out in anger.
March 20th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Maggie:
Good for you, and it worked for you and your daughter. Would you have still whacked if you knew that she held no aces because of your doing so?
You see, the father in this trial might not have ended up being hauled before a court if he had been able, when he judged it necessary, to give his troublesome, disobedient child a good whack.
Sometimes a good hiding gets through to a kid in a way that nothing else does.
I brought up three. We never had ‘contracts’. My kids had friends who did, and they were treated as a joke.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
BeaB asks:
The ones that use fence palings, lit cigarettes, boiling water etc… the answer is generally “yes”. They’re sociopaths and it’s not just children who need protecting from them. But Bradford’s Law doesn’t differentiate between them and the parent trying the best they can, at the end of their tether, who gets out the hair clippers. You’ll usually find those people don’t have a history of violence, and deserve to be viewed differently to the first cohort.
But the intent of Bradford’s Law (as happily enacted by Clark, Key and co, let’s not forget) is to erase that distinction. Therefore this jury seems to have brought it back.. albeit with some rather alarming lack of attention to their duty, it seems.
For parents who find themselves in the sor of situation in which this father found himself, there ought to be some “junior” version of the successful Limited Service Volunteers program for his son, which turns young teenagers around, while he goes off to a compulsory parenting course. Not a conviction, a crinminal record and a punishment as Braford, Key and Clark seem to think appropriate.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Yawn Kimble. You see the “Left” in my name so I must be one of those people desperate to defend Sue Bradford right? Left is bad, I get it.
Vote:When in a jury you are not suppose to decide on guilt right when the case begins. You are suppose to wait until it is summed up and then go through the case step by step with the other jurors.
Maybe someone might say the prosecutions case is not strong, but to have thoughts of acquittal right from the start….. thats not justice.
So you would have no problem people making early decisions if they were the jury on your case?
Remember, the prosecution goes first so most early decisions might lean toward guilty.
March 20th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Short, Shriveled, she didn’t say she decided without hearing the evidence – she said, “at the start”.
Sometimes things are very obvious from the kind of people you can see they are. She also did not say, “it was obvious from the start, so we ignored all the evidence that came after and went bowling instead”. It was probably more like, “it was obvious from the start that the couple should be acquitted, and the evidence that followed made it even clearer in the jurors minds”.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
“When in a jury you are not suppose to decide on guilt right when the case begins.”
Its human nature to form opinions quickly. We get data, we process data. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. All you can do is instruct them to listen to all the data before making a decision. That happened here too. They listened to all information before ruling.
“So you would have no problem people making early decisions if they were the jury on your case?”
See, right there is your mistake. You think the decision was made early, but that is what you are putting into the statement. The decision was made at the end.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Rex @ 5.37pm
Yes & the ones that deem punishment with fence palings & the like are necessary to straighten out children are still up to their old habits. The men (for want of a better name) who go home & punish the kids as an excuse for their worthless lives. The fat bad tempered slag in the supermarket waits until she gets home before the kids cop it. Their abuse is seldom reported because it is considered acceptable to their peers.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of man & parliament to draw up legislation that discriminates between an open handed whack on the arse & beating a child half senseless.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Kimble. Lefties can never make decisions quickly. That’s why they have committees and become politicians (and grow beards), so they can go on forever pontificating about stuff all and never be accused of making a clear decision. Incapable of assuming responsibilty for their decisions. That’s why they all work for someone else and not themselves. Simply unable to get their brains working on logical response.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
It’s disgusting so many people here delight in a parent escaping conviction for abusing their child. This guy sounds like a psychopath. I bet he tortures animals too.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Viking.
Vote:Here’s a quick decision….. you’re a social moron if you assume all lefties are dumb. But if you choose to judge people that quickly I guess ultimately the person most affected by your attitude is you.
March 20th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Very interesting article HERE by a once-leftist about what gets Lefties outraged. It’s not what outrages most people – it focuses on the self…
So true
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Luc
I’m fairly sure the Police can appeal only if the jury were incorrectly directed by the Judge i.e he gave them a direction that was wrong in law and the verdict they came up with maybe changed if they had been directed differently.
There will be a couple of others as well I have forgotten but UNFORTUNATELY they can’t appeal every time they get a decision they don’t like
I think the judge can also set aside a jury decision if the verdict is completely rogue to the evidence they have been presented with
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
TW, the point I was making is that any half decent parent who hits a kid feels so ashamed afterwards the child takes the moral high ground.
A good hiding teaches a kid that stronger, more powerful people can get their own way by hurting others. The child learns that you are strong, powerful and to be feared because you can hurt him.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
reid, think of the definition of bullying. A larger, more powerful human being using force against a smaller, weaker one to change some behaviour.
Maggie this is not the definition of bullying for it conflates the act with the mindset driving it and treats it as one and the same thing which isn’t actually the case. As well you completely misunderstand bullying if you think its about changing behaviour. It’s not about that at all, but I’m not surprised a lefty lightweight like you doesn’t get it.
Often bullying behaviour disappears as people move into educated adulthood. (It doesn’t disappear when people enter into uneducated adulthood which is why we all need to do everything we can to prevent “uneducation.” This fact however implies that when it happens in children it’s mostly happening subconsciously. Anything that happens subconsciously is by definition absent of malice aforethought. Like I said Maggie, educated adults move out of the phase if they even in it in the first place, so does your legislation address itself toward that issue? No, it doesn’t, does it.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Maggie, I hope you do not have children. If you do not know the difference between hitting a cjild and giving naughty toddler a smack on the arse you should not be a parent.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
nasska
These kids are being scarred for life by the behaviour of a control freak, abusive father. He needs help.
Your social engineering reference is risible – what law isn’t “social engineering”?
CYFS should intervene, if it hasn’t already.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
“A good hiding teaches a kid that stronger, more powerful people can get their own way by hurting others.”
Whatever. We are talking about smacking. You dont seem to have any idea what that is.
You are too ignorant to participate intelligently in this conversation.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Jeez Kimble
How would you know what an intelligent conversation is?
And who would ever say the right wing loonies here were having a conservation, rather than expressing extreme views and indulging in personal abuse?
Oh, of course, another right wing loony.
Sorry
PS I’ve brought up two of my own boys and two stepsons, all over 20 now, and currently have a 2 yo daughter.
So am I, too, ignorant of how to bring up children?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Luc, you might have brought up kids, but none of that helps you read any better.
You are probably also a lefty moron that thinks smacking = a good hiding. It doesnt, but you guys dont seem to want to hear that. This is why you always, and will always, lose this debate. You dont know what smacking is.
Every time you open your mouth, you show people why they shouldnt listen to you.
If you dont even understand what smacking is, then why do you lefty tossers think anyone should listen to you? Seriously!
You guys should stop wearing your ignorance as a badge of pride. Its not illegal to be informed and understand what you are arguing about. (One of you should Bradford.)
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
A good hiding teaches a kid that stronger, more powerful people can get their own way by hurting others. The child learns that you are strong, powerful and to be feared because you can hurt him.
Clearly there is a wide gap of knowledge about this subject. We are talking of smacking for discipline not beating the crap out of some kid.
If you don’t even understand what smacking is then you have a problem and you should stop wearing your ignorance as a badge of pride. You should stop telling other people about something that you simply don’t appear to understand. And understand you clearly don’t Luc for the best reply you could think of was to attack me rather than talk about the subject.
Viking.
Here’s a quick decision….. you’re a social moron if you assume all lefties are dumb. But if you choose to judge people that quickly I guess ultimately the person most affected by your attitude is you.
You obviously lack any comprehension skills in the English language for I defy you to point out in this thread where I said that all lefties are dumb.
Come on show us all just how educated and skilled you are.
You can’t Can you.
Which kinda proves your own assumption I guess.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
So Kimble, tell us, what is a smack?
When does a smack become a whack?
When does a whack become a hit?
Enlighten us.
And what about a kid being tied up, given cold showers, humiliated by his head being shaved, and having soap shoved into his mouth.
Definitely not a smack.
I still remember when I was probably about 7, refusing to eat mashed spud (not the Red Alert Spud, I assure you!) because it was too hot, and Dad came over to me and shoved it into my mouth and down my throat. I had a sore throat for a week.
Did my Dad do anything wrong?
If so, wrong enough to be tried and convicted for child abuse?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
No, you should have been sent to CY_PS for being disobedient.
Vote:You should shut up before you really stuff your own arguments.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
And why is someone who doesn’t want to see kids abused a leftie?
That makes JK a leftie!
So stupid, these political divides.
Let’s get one thing straight, what the guy did, and probably is still doing, is against the law. He happened to get a sympathetic jury. That doesn’t make what he did legal. Heaps of guilty people have been acquitted by juries in an open and shut case. That’s just the way our system works.
My concern is that men will take this case as a licence to perpetrate this abuse.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Viking 2
At least I am intelligent enough to present with an argument.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Well he bloody well is. Haven’t you figured that out yet?
You are a disaster merchant LUC.
There is no conceivable reason why you should concern yourself with this mans behavoir in the future until or unless something else happens.
This is just your emotional baggage being visited on others, just like the Law was a result of Bradfords emotional luggage.
That makes you a narcissistic self centered individual that thinks the world should run according to you.
Vote:Fortunately most of the rest of us don’t agree with you.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
you’re going to pretend that what you wrote doesnt insinuate that you think all lefties are dumb but thats basically what is implied with
“Lefties can never make decisions quickly………Simply unable to get their brains working on logical response.”
and now we get your next ego dominated comment
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Luc, we are still waiting for your reply.
And no you haven’t presented an argument, only your own self centred opinion based on your assumptions of the law. A law which 88% of kiwi’s in a referendum voted to be changed.
Vote:Which kinda makes you point of view irrelevant in the scheme of greater things.
The fact that Key has chosen to ignore what people wanted discredits his point of view as well and Lord knows why those same people make him popular now.
Still not many Leaders about these days.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
SSL. You have few comprehension skills if you consider that calling lefties dumb.
Vote:But I suppose if the hat fits you should wear it.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Nah, the stupid prick will go looking…. and then cut and paste the whole fucking article.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Luc, still waiting for you to show me where I have said lefties are dumb. Still can’t can you.
Cha.
Vote:Intelligent conversation from you. Perhaps you are trying to say something?
March 20th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Is that the best you can come up with Luc? Thats it is difficult to identify the exact point when a smack becomes a whack?
And your solution to this “problem” is to treat them all the same? Brilliant.
Some lefties are of normal intelligence, some are stupid. Because it is impossible to decide at what point intelligence changes from stupid to normal, we will all just assume all lefties are stupid.
The funny thing is, we dont lose because we fail to specify the precise point along the spectrum when a smack (which you say is OK*) becomes a whack. That is simply an argument to allow law enforcers to use discretion. Something Bradford, and the rest of your lot, didnt want!
* See, because you say there is ambiguity around the degree and that this is bad, then you must logically hold the position that there is some part of the spectrum which is OK. Otherwise, you would argue that even the lightest form is bad, and so questions of degree would be irrelevant.
That is, unless you are being dishonest in your questions about degree?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
One aspect of the case that seems to have been missed is the context. This man was living with a new wife and his children from his previous marriage were living with them. A dollar to a doughnut his first wife laid the complaint (which according to the father’s testimony was ‘full of exaggerations’) as a vindictive act. The kids, from a split home, were likely dynamite and the poor bastard was having difficulty keeping the son under control. Society, if not the law, requires parental control of kids, but is reluctant to sanction the necessary tools for doing the job. A jury of peers is an essential part of our justice system; the members are likely to have a real life perspective rather that some idealistic lawmaker’s vision; and a fair outcome is more probable.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Kimble. They don’t think or see the logic only the emotion.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
When does a smack become a whack?
When does a whack become a hit?
Luc this is pretty basic mate.
A smack becomes a whack or a hit when its done in anger not love.
Most people don’t need that explained to them.
The tiny frational percent which do, are the very ones completely ignorant of this law, and acting accordingly, as we type. These are the ones Luc whose children would benefit and indeed these are the only ones who would ever benefit from your law. But it doesn’t address that issue, does it. Instead it seeks to address some completely fantastic scenario which exists only in the minds of a minority of fucked-in-the-head lefties. With all due respect.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
“A good hiding teaches a kid that stronger, more powerful people can get their own way by hurting others. The child learns that you are strong, powerful and to be feared because you can hurt him.”
Maggie: I know that’s said, and so often that it’s a kind of mantra.
I was surprised by experience to find that wasn’t so.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Maggie: “A good hiding teaches a kid that stronger, more powerful people can get their own way by hurting others. The child learns that you are strong, powerful and to be feared because you can hurt him.”
That’s not what it taught me. It taught me the value of remaining determined and winning despite difficulties, a lesson that has stood me in excellent stead. And I never once thought my parents were brutal or uncaring, though they would be jailed now for the sort of physical punishment I got. When they were kids they got very severe hidings, mine were a bit less so.
You can’t say something so sweeping just because you think it should always be true.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Annie:
Bang-on.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
A good hiding teaches a kid that stronger, more powerful people can get their own way by hurting others. The child learns that you are strong, powerful and to be feared because you can hurt him.
Yes but a “good hiding” always was against the law Maggie even before your execrable law came into miserable being so what was your point?
Were you attempting to pretend most people did that when they physically disciplined their kids? Well whose a liar then, Maggie?
And you said you actually have kids? Fucken hell. Those poor mites.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
5.1 quake 10 kilometers away from CHCH. 10km deep.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Luc Hansen says:
I’d agree, and so, I suspect, would at least some of the others who opposed Bradford’s Law. As I said above, a compulsory parenting course seems to be in order.
Lots of people who appear before the courts actually need help… people addicted to drugs and driven by that addiction to crime; people living in poverty and driven by that to steal, and so on. Kids with Aspergers and a compulsion to collect old lightbulbs.
What strikes me is the hypocrisy of lefties (or liberals, or call them what you will) who would support help being given to the junkie but not this father, while many righties (or conservatives, or call them what you will) would say precisely the opposite.
Criminalising and punishing someone who acts without evil intent (i.e. is not a sociopath) is almost never the appropriate response, yet almost everyone is happy to trot it out to use against their particular boogeyman, while being appalled at its application to anyone who appears more like them.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
All this winging from Bradford and her followers and it seems like they love the thought of a family being broken apart and a man sent to jail because he shaved his kids hair after the child failed to respond to warnings and requests.
No thought of “if the family are having a bit of trouble, how could we align social services to help, rather than destroy?”
There were many clues in that short account that the Jury probably had a lot more facts at their disposal than we do, and yet Bradford is ready to send the parents to the gulags. Some of those clues:
* The three incidents reported were all at different times.
* The time the man tied himself to his son, the son was apparently suicidal.
* A third party had reported these incidents and may have exaggerated.
* It looks like the children were in the middle of a messy divorce, and this explains much, because children are expected to survive such things, but the cost is higher than society is prepared to acknowledge.
There were other clues, but I don’t think the mob really want to discuss it. This is a case that requires some compassion and understanding, not jail time. The kids would continue to suffer because of that.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Criminalising and punishing someone who acts without evil intent (i.e. is not a sociopath) is almost never the appropriate response, yet almost everyone is happy to trot it out to use against their particular boogeyman, while being appalled at its application to anyone who appears more like them.
Interesting point Rex. What about holding people appropriately to account for their own actions? At which point do you say, nah – understand your situation is shitty, but not an excuse.
??
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Ok
I’m back
Viking2, where did I say I accused you of calling lefties dumb?
Trout
My two stepsons were inherited from (separate) broken homes.
By definition, my own sons are from broken homes.
Trout: get this: IT’S NOT THE KID’S FAULT!
reid
smacks are always done in anger. Think about it.
In this case, it sounds to me more like that of a woman that has freed herself from an abusive husband and stood up for her kids.
Good for her.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Some of these comments make me sick. I never had to hurt/hit/smack my kids. We never even talked about discipline, punishment and all that crap. Where does all that creepy talk come from?
Vote:Love your kids, set them a good example, draw the lines and spend all the time you have with them. We did it. You can too without using your hand/fist/weapon of choice.
Any man who wants to hit his little girl or boy would not be welcome in our home. And should not be acceptable in any civilised society. Same applies to women though I note above mostly it’s men who want the right to hit little children. Yuk.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Zen Tiger
How many 10 yo kids commit suicide?
And why was this kid supposedly suicidal?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
BeaB
It’s great to be on the same side as you, for once.
Cheers.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Ah, reid, of course, it’s just COMMON SENSE!
To Einstein, common sense is ” the collection of prejudices one gathers by age 18″ and to Bertrand Russel (heard of him?) it is “the metaphysics of savages”.
Which definition suits you?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
reid:
No all-encompassing answer to that. If I thought I had one, I’d be as much a hubristic dictator as, say, David Garrett. Every case is different – how bad was the action vs how shitty was the life of the perpetrator? I’d give a junkie a lot of leeway if all he’d done was nick my car; much, much less if he’d run over a kid in it.
Making case-by-case judgments is why we have judges and juries and courts. They don’t always get it 100% right and sometimes they get it 100% wrong, but they’re better than the alternative – mandatory penalties put in place by ignorant politicians.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Newsflash: Being a brilliant scientist does not make you right on everything. Einstein believed in some sort of God, for one thing. Russell, OTOH, said “No one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God”.
So they disagreed on God but agreed that common sense wasn’t for them. And that makes them.. right… wrong… or just two blokes with an opinion?
Einstein also said “The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action”… something with which I happen to agree (though stop short of implying that, because Einstein agrees with me, I’m more likely to be right than someone who believes the opposite).
But if we’re not to base our morality on myth or authority, then that pretty much only leaves common sense, in the broadest sense of that term.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Perhaps this verdict is not what was intended by parliament when it passed this law. It is, however, the correct decision. The laws passed by parliament are supposed to be a reflection of community standards, and Sue Bradford’s vitriol against parenting is most certainly not such a reflection. Juries therefore are perfectly justified to throw out any and all cases based on such hubristic lawmaking. Parliament should also be taking another look at this law.
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Rex
Einstein did not believe in “some sort of God”
He was an atheist.
As was Russel.
If you don’t pay attention to leading thinkers, who DO you listen to?
Tramps?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
At the risk of being off topic … need to correct (yet another) lie of Luc H
Einstein reinstated his Jewishness as both an outcomes of anti-Semitism in Germany and his personal involvement with Zionism. He later remarked that he could not understand how one could divest himself of his Jewishness.
Enjoy!
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
CB, I don’t know why you feel the need to get personal and offensive. I guess it disguises a complete lack of ability to argue intelligently, reid shows the same tendency.
My kids, now grown up, have in fact done extremely well.
BeaB, you make great sense. I wonder if CB and reid discipline their partners the way they consider they should discipline their children?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Which definition suits you?
Neither Luc. I live life and I roam the earth, like all of us do. Some of us don’t seem to notice it as much as others…
BTW, a smack isn’t de-facto always given in anger.
I thought you’d raised a few kids yourself?
Vote:March 20th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
@ Luc
How many 10 yo kids commit suicide? And why was this kid supposedly suicidal?
That’s why its handy to have the details of the case to figure such things out, as the jury probably did.
Also, you can smack a child in discipline, and not be angry. It’s not appropriate to jail a parent and put the child into State care, if they give their child a smack, even if you don’t agree with them doing that. That’s a bit like hitting a child with a 4 by 2 to tell them not to touch an electrical outlet. Excessive.
Now what was it Bradford said again? If you are not going to put a kid in jail for being naughty, why would you do that to an adult? Surely, you have to treat naughty adults exactly the same, and just give them a hug and tell them to be good in future and send them on their way. Then they’ll respond positively and follow your exact advice.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 1:02 am
Ahhh Luc… just when the debate turns interesting you can be relied upon to derail it with an untruth:
See… some kind of God, in other words.
Well, not you… not if I want the truth. And what’s wrong with tramps? Many have led full and fascinating lives and have much to contribute to any philosophical discussion.
While others just throw up on your shoes.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 1:49 am
Apparently there is new legislation coming that stops Kiwi kids hitting their parents.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 7:14 am
Gods! I had my mouth washed out by soap a few times as a kid. LEarnt not to swear at or around my mother. Big deal.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 7:27 am
+1 QFT, something that could happen more in these threads also.
Not wanting to appear a brown-nose, but DPF talks a lot of sense on parenting issues, for a childless right-winger
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 9:09 am
“Shilton said she contacted the couple after the case to say how embarrassed she felt. It was obvious to her from the start the couple should be acquitted. She said most, but not all, of the other jurors felt similarly.”
Didn’t Deanne Shilton just bring the jury system into disrepute by admitting to being impartial from the outset, and applying that the majority of other jurors did to. Hasn’t she committed purjory by not declaring this at the outset.
“admitted the tying, cutting the child’s hair and washing his mouth out”
I’m impressed that anyone, even someone who does support corporal punishment of children, would support this mans irrational use. It demonstrates that his kids’ problems probably derive directly from his own irrationality, and seeming ignorance. Can someone explain how a child is supposed to link his method of punishment with his misbehavior? Strangely enough, this man’s ignorance was actually reflected in misuse/misapplication/misunderstanding of the time-out concept- a method which has far better systematic evidence (aswell as anecdotal evidence, for those who like to think ‘backwards’) than physical punishment.
So, the system acquitted this man- and it seems like people are gloating about it- good on you. I’d be careful of holding this man up as your posterboy though, he sounds fairly reminiscent of that lady with the riding crop, and for this case to have gotten to court in the first place (i.e. the police used their discretion to charge) suggests that this won’t be the last case of physically abusing a child that he is tried on.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 9:17 am
hmm, written in haste:
that’s implying not applying.
that’s charged with not tried on.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 9:32 am
There’s basically no information in the article about the case.
Far, far too little to go on. For starters, I see nothing worth mentioning about what the child was actually doing. In some of these previous cases, the child’s appalling behaviour lead to serious punishment, and the jury’s decision would suggest that this case may be the same.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 9:45 am
More information:
Vote:http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=840
March 21st, 2011 at 9:47 am
I’m intrigued to know why Luc seemed so certain that Einstein was an ‘Athiest’? Did he just presume that to be so??
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:01 am
@scrubone 9:45 am
From McCoskrie:
Washing a kid’s moth out with soap is “part of the normal disciplining and raising of children”? What king of parallel universe do people who think like this live in. It is a degrading and humiliating punsihment that no child should be subjected to, whatever the circumstances. If done to an adult it would be considered torture.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:09 am
Longknives – it depends on how you want to define “Atheist” and “God”…it’s a certainty that Einstein did not believe in the kind of God portrayed in your garden-variety holy book. The sort you can
have one-sided conversations withpray to and convince yourself has instructed you to “spread the good news” etc.Other A.E quotes for clarity:
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”
“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”
“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. “
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:20 am
@scrubone 9:45 am
BTW, McCoskrie of course has a history of cherry picking his “information” to back his position on the issue (and I’m not denying that some on the other side of the debate do that too, before someone accuses me of being hypocritical).
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:21 am
Good old Wikipedia quotes Einstein- “You may call me an agnostic… I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.”
Seems he wasn’t an ‘Athiest’ then….
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:38 am
Washing a kid’s moth out with soap is “part of the normal disciplining and raising of children”? What king of parallel universe do people who think like this live in. It is a degrading and humiliating punsihment that no child should be subjected to, whatever the circumstances. If done to an adult it would be considered torture.
I believe that parallel universe is called “the real world”. Toad, reading through your comments above, I don’t find it hard to believe you live somewhere else.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:41 am
BTW, McCoskrie of course has a history of cherry picking his “information” to back his position on the issue (and I’m not denying that some on the other side of the debate do that too, before someone accuses me of being hypocritical).
Yes, and those people on the “other side” put theirs in official reports.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:44 am
Or, more clearly:
– Albert Einstein
Or more wordily:
– Albert Einstein
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:46 am
–Combining key elements from the first and second response from Einstein there is little doubt as to his position: “From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist…. I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.”–
http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:47 am
Wouldn’t wash a kid’s mouth out with soap myself for swearing, but then I’m not this kid’s parent. The child is their responsibility, not mine. Problem is – to Bradford, Toad et al, there isn’t any line between “not the way I’d do it” and “should result in a criminal conviction,” hence the parents in this case ending up standing in the dock. Fortunately, jurors seem to have more sense than our legislators.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:50 am
You guys do actually know the difference between an agnostic and an athiest don’t you?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:52 am
Psycho Milt: quite. Also, there’s a whole lot of looking at one side, without understanding that what is “reasonable” changes with behaviour.
It’s not unreasonable to tie up a child who’s running around punching and biting a pregnant woman. It’s not reasonable to tie a up a child who got in the road of your view of the TV.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:58 am
What makes you think Einstein was agnostic as to the existence of a personal God?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:00 am
“God does not play dice” – Albert Einstein on the Uncertainty Principle
[Thank you to Stephen Hawking for the quote – http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/64
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:08 am
Ryan- There are a mountain of quotes from Einstein that suggest he was well and truly ‘sitting on the fence’ regarding personal religious beliefs. While not a follower of any organised religion he certainly did not emphatically deny the existence of any ‘greater power’…
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:13 am
Psycho Milt, how can you support these right wing lunatics? They want to allow parents to beat their children with belts, as if its GOOD FOR THEM!
Why do you think you have to give a kid a really good hiding to punish them for every little indiscretion?
All the research into this topic shows unequivocally that smacking is detrimental to the child AND the parent!
The fault for any child dying from a parental beating will be on your head, just as much as the rest of these right wingers!
Barbarian!
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:15 am
“While not a follower of any organised religion he certainly did not emphatically deny the existence of any ‘greater power’…”
No atheist should. Nobody can know. We could understand the origins of the universe, and still not KNOW there isnt a God.
That is why intelligent atheists dont say, categorically, that a God doesnt exist.
That does not mean they believe there is one.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:18 am
Toad, good to see you back. What was it you were doing when the police broke your ribs during the ’81 riots?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:18 am
Do you have any? Because “I do not believe in a personal God” is a pretty straightforward statement.
And “greater power” is awfully vague. Was that Einstein’s phrasing? Can you point at where he used it? Does a totally impersonal “greater power” mean anything at all like you mean by the word “God”?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:20 am
Do intelligent theists say, categorically, that a God does exist?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:22 am
Yes. Many of them, Ryan.
Or are you making the point that intelligent theist is an oxymoron?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:22 am
Surely being a theist is saying that God exits?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:27 am
I’m making the point that, if this is your criteria for agnosticism, all intelligent theists and atheists are agnostics. Technically fine, but I don’t think that bearing in mind one’s own fallibility is the same thing as what most people mean by “agnostic”. Einstein may have been agnostic in the sense that your “many intelligent theists” are agnostic, but it seems pretty clear that he was as sure as he could be of anything, that there is no personal God.
Also, you said “intelligent atheists don’t say categorically that a God doesn’t exist”, implying that if an atheist says categorically that a God doesn’t exist, they are not intelligent. Yet the same rule doesn’t apply to theists? (You mentioned that some theists you consider intelligent do categorically state that a God exists.)
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:42 am
Yes, if an atheist says (and believes) that there is a zero probability that God exists, without using “zero probability” as shorthand for very, very, very low probability, then they arent intelligent.
No one can prove 100% that God doesnt exist. I think that is something everyone can accept. (If you dont, then you arent intelligent.)
That doesnt mean that people who accept this must believe in God.
This is an old theists trick, to try and ‘prove’ to other theists that some of the more intelligent atheists actually do believe in God.
The 100% belief in the non-existence of God, is as shakey as the 100% belief that there is a God.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:42 am
“Atheist n.- One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.”
Kimble- “No atheist should. Nobody can know. We could understand the origins of the universe, and still not KNOW there isnt a God.
That is why intelligent atheists dont say, categorically, that a God doesnt exist”
I’ve got bad news for you buddy- unless you categorically deny the existence of any God then you might want to rethink your membership to ‘Athiests R Us’….
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:49 am
Right, so Einstein was an atheist who (presumably) admitted his human fallibility, just as say Alvin Plantinga is a theist who (hopefully) admits his human fallibility. It’s a bit uninformative to call them both agnostics, though.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 12:03 pm
I disbelieve and deny the existence of God.
I am an atheist.
I cannot say 100% that God doesnt exist, no one can.
Would a Christian who accepted there was SOME chance that god didnt exist be an atheist?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 12:10 pm
The only thing we know (with limited human reasoning) exists, is ourselves and what we happen to be looking at.
There is no explanation that science has given us for our existence that excludes God in the smallest degree.
The concept of Christian faith is one where an individual through the gift of faith is able to comprehend reality to a much higher degree than our limited intellects would otherwise enable.
Vote:This is true Christianity.
True Christianity is not common.
March 21st, 2011 at 12:15 pm
God is that guy from Destiny Church who was all go until Dave Dobbyn made that video Welcome Home, in attack.
Hang on, isn’t Dave Dobbyn a Christian?
Oh, this Christianity stuff is so confusing.
Especially, when Jesus wasn’t even a Christian, so THEY say.
Just ODD.
I opt for agnostic to be safe, unless I am in Germany, then I opt for no-belief, for lessor mandatory religious government imposed taxes.
Fun world, isn’t it?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 12:43 pm
One aspect of the case that seems to have been missed is the context. This man was living with a new wife and his children from his previous marriage were living with them. A dollar to a doughnut his first wife laid the complaint (which according to the father’s testimony was ‘full of exaggerations’) as a vindictive act.
This appears to have been the case from the information Bob has provided.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Back on topic, when I read about this case I thought that the father and his new wife had acted badly. I say that as someone who collected thousands of signatures opposing this law that undermines parental authority. However, after listening to Leighton Smith, the father and reading what the head jury had to say I have changed my mind.
The head juror’s commit can be read at http://networkedblogs.com/fErc2
Some highlights are
I would think with hindsight that that father may think he would have been better to have sent his son to live with his mother who appears to have instigated a lot of the problems.
Sadly I do not think there is any more chance of John Key sticking to his word over this issue than over the foreshore and seabed legislation.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Chuck: like I talked about above, it’s reasonable *in the circumstances*.
Circumstances can make a massive difference, and they are never in the headlines. Often don’t make it into the stories either.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 1:03 pm
If by “our existence”, you mean the whole universe, perhaps not. But plenty of things that were once explained by God-belief are now adequately explained by science. Rainbows, for example.
The problem is that the concept of non-Christian faith is one where an individual through the gift of faith is able to comprehend reality to a much higher degree than our limited intellects would otherwise enable – and it contradicts Christian faith. Hindu faith, Muslim faith, they all enable people to comprehend reality that is “beyond our limited intellects” (or “makes no sense”). And they contradict one another.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Ryan, what has your post to do with the topic, “Jurors mitigating anti-smacking law”?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 1:13 pm
If by “our existence”, you mean the whole universe, perhaps not. But plenty of things that were once explained by God-belief are now adequately explained by science. Rainbows, for example.
Perhaps these believers were just using their “earthly” intellect in an act of presumption. It is neither here nor there that they did this.
The problem is that the concept of non-Christian faith is one where an individual through the gift of faith is able to comprehend reality to a much higher degree than our limited intellects would otherwise enable – and it contradicts Christian faith. Hindu faith, Muslim faith, they all enable people to comprehend reality that is “beyond our limited intellects” (or “makes no sense”). And they contradict one another.
That there are other ways to interpret a deeper reality is neither here nor there either. But there is perhaps only one legitimate way to do so that leads to the ‘truth’ in it’s entirety, this is the claim that Jesus makes.
Vote:But like I said, most Christians don’t appear to approach their religion like this. Personally I find this makes Jesus Christ of immense interest as the ‘truth’ of his claims may still be largely hidden from most people.
March 21st, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Shunda, the “truth” of his claims are hidden from everyone. Those that claim differently have historically been frauds and charlatans.
Your God seems to be the god of ignorance. The god of the gaps in our knowledge. As science discovers, God dies. Your gods only hope is that the human race dies out before we learn everything.
I have seen theists claim a lot of things as PROOF god existed. This includes the ‘fact’ that water only exists on Earth. This is wrong, but somehow that error doesnt weaken their case for God.
The ‘fact’ that Earth is in the hospitable zone around the sun, is another one of these claims. Unfortunately, the Keppler telescopes revelation of dozens of planets in the habitable zones around other suns destorys that case for god. Again, this does nothing to diminish their case.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 1:34 pm
To the outsider, this is indistinguishable from any other religion’s claim that if they “have faith” (ie., stop trying to work it out rationally and just accept that the believer’s claims are true), they will suddenly realise how much sense it all makes.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 1:46 pm
To the outsider, this is indistinguishable from any other religion’s claim that if they “have faith” (ie., stop trying to work it out rationally and just accept that the believer’s claims are true), they will suddenly realise how much sense it all makes.
Rational thought always eventually hits the brick wall of what lays on the other side of the big bang. Rational thought therefore leads every rational person to the beginning of faith itself.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 1:50 pm
“Rational thought therefore leads every rational person to the beginning of faith itself.”
And thats where the rational person stops, lest they succumb to irrationalism and start believing in unicorns and fairies.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 1:54 pm
And thats where the rational person stops, lest they succumb to irrationalism and start believing in unicorns and fairies.
No actually, it is when they choose to humble themselves or walk off in a huff and ridicule those that don’t as “believers in unicorns and fairies”
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 2:04 pm
So being irrational is being humble?
Why humble yourself for something you dont know exists? Arent you just humbling yourself to yourself?
The rational person is actually MORE humble than the irrational god believers. The rational person says, there is something I dont know. The god-believer says, I have the answer to the thing I dont know.
The invention of god is probably the least humble thing humanity has ever done. Who the hell are we to create god, when there could as easliy be something else?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Why is “I don’t know” not an acceptable answer?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 2:25 pm
No Kimble, you are just presuming irrationality and placing too much weight on your definition of it.
Vote:If no evidence of a ‘god’ trying to communicate with human kind existed in our history then you would be right, but there is a huge amount of ‘god’ in our species history.
A rational person, when faced with the perplexing issue of the other side of the big bang looks for possible answers.
For me, I am currently looking at the claims of Jesus Christ and trying to separate the hypocrisy of the ‘church’ from the possibility of his claims being legitimate.
What I am finding is a constant warning about people claiming to be representing him but actually being deceived in their presumption.
This all fits with a rational understanding of human nature and the tendencies people have to control or dominate others, and also fits with the notion that ‘true’ Christianity is something that has largely been hidden from view.
Just my personal opinion, but I see no reason to believe that I am being irrational, what would be irrational is to declare there is no ‘god’ without investigating the possibility and possible evidence of interaction with human kind.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Why is “I don’t know” not an acceptable answer?
Because that statement is often a mistranslation of “I don’t care”.
Vote:Some people do care and want to understand, I think desire to understand reality is the most noble pursuit human beings can engage in.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:39 pm
So after science’s massive success with explaining so much of what happened after the Big Bang (including hypothesising and accruing evidence that it happened in the first place), you reach one question science has not yet answered (and investigations are ongoing), and at that point think, “You know what? I’m going to see what a guy from 2000 years ago had to say on the matter.”
And I’m pretty sure he didn’t actually say anything about it anyway, unless there are some hidden Jesus quotes inside this hidden true Christianity stuff.
It just seems like a very odd way to go about things.
What prevents you, for example, from seeing that current hole in scientific knowledge and saying, “You know what? I’m going to see what ancient Hindus said on the matter,” and deciding that before the Big Bang was another universe and it’s been going on over and over forever?
Why is one unfounded answer any better than another?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Because one is more logical.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I think if everyone was there for the entire 4 weeks of the trial, yes 4 weeks which is the same amount of time for most murder trials. You would clearly see the truth behind the allegations. At some stage you will hear the whole story of this family, and what CYFS has put them through, through all the tax money spent and how much power and control they have over the police as well. And how they tried to break up a marraige and family, but have only made it stronger.
Things like telling a judge in a family court, that if the wife divorces her husband, she can have her 1 yr old son back. These are the CYFS lawyers and family court lawyers.
Things like the two lead witnesses for the police committing out right perjury. Where the family is now trying to meet with the police to lay these charges as lawyers accept that they caused this blatently to defeat justice.
This family is a good family, this is not the source of media to explain everything and tell the story, but it will come out soon. This child punched the wife in the stomach previoulsy while she was 7 mths pregnant, and said “I hope that baby dies”, because she asked him to change the channel from MTV watching half naked women music videos to another channel, when he wouldnt, she turned it off and he stood up and punched her, a strong, tall 11 yr old boy, who is much stronger and bigger than her.
Then a few years later, he beat her black and blue with photo’s taken and verified of all the abuse, because she tried stopping him from taking a stolen bike he had already taken. So he beat her, punched her, kicked her, bite her, scratched her, because he cannot control his anger.
So when the father comes home trys to search the neighbourhood for his son, then gets help from another person and then the child’s friends help out as well. When they get home, the child tries to kill himself, asking for a knife so he can stab himself and that he will kill his sister and the wife.
Very late at night, the father makes a decision to tie his wrist with his shirt tie to this sons wrist to prevent him from moving from his side till he has calmed down so he could feel movement and prevent suicidal or death to anyone else. The child loosens it and gets lose, the father then goes to find him and makes a very bad decision by then putting it around his neck, but not that it was tight, just the knot was tight, but it was still lose kind of around the neck. But not knowing what to do, but then feeling really ill of what he had done 30 seconds later, took it off and asked his son to hop into bed to talk about things and cry and cuddle about everything.
Then the child crying and saying sorry about what he had done to the wife, he says, “i just dont know how to control my anger dad”.
Previous to this, when he kept swearing for hours on end to everyone in the family, the father going through all his priviledges one by one if he kept swearing, like xbox taken away for a week, computer, sport, pocket money etc etc, if he kept swearing and being told Fuc? u mother fuc?a, continuously, after hours of this abuse to the family, the father then said if you swear one more time, he will put soap in his mouth and the child says “Fuc? u mother fuc?a. So the father did it but very quickly.
the hair cut was the final straw of him continuing stealing things, eg. eftpost card, cash, items from his school teachers, over a period of years, then he decided to use my wife’s hair product, but it’s not about the hair product, more the principle of not asking and stealing for years. So after going through all the usual methods of timeout and privledges before. He decided to do something different.
He said to the child, that he was going to give him a haircut as he needed one anyway, but he would cut it a bit shorter than normal from a no #4 to a no #2. He mentioned the reason why he was doing this, that when he woudl look in the mirror he would realise not to steal things or not ask. So he then went outside with a wireless clippers and cut his childs hair on a seat.
The father then cuddled his son, as they were both emotional and it hurt his father as well, but was trying to teach his son these life skills of not stealing etc.
The school principle in this court trial even mentioned on the stand, that the haircut actually look quite good, it was not like the child had been held down and hacked at etc.
But there is much more to this case, then people here realise, and the sunday star article definitely didnt resemble what really happened. After the first 2 days of the trial after the prosecutions witnesses who blatently lied but got caught clearly in their dishonesty.
The truth is the truth and when people lie you have to keep lieing and you will forget. But it’s easy for people to judge here, but when you hear the real story which 12 independnet jurors did, from all different backgrounds.
This family is glad that justice prevailed. But there is much more to come, on how this family who is a good family were really treated these past two years and still continue to get treated! Dont take things for face value as there is much more involved.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 4:02 pm
But you are talking about logic and rational thinking only taking a person so far. Any step beyond that (logically and rationally) must be illogical and irrational.
And what evidence could you have of gods interaction with humans that is not itself declared and described by those humans? Surely such independently verified “interactions with god” would have made the news?
And yes, god turns up a lot in human history. That is because there was even more that was unknown back then. Again, your god is the god of ignorance. Back when there was more ignorance, there was more god.
They were wrong that god made the sun rise and set each day. They were wrong that god made the rains come. They were wrong that god created the earth.
In all the thousands of scientific discoveries over the centuries, the answer has NEVER turned out to be “God did it”.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Ahh I see Luc Hansen has successfully derailed this thread with his references to Einstein and, through him, to God. Mission accomplished, then.
Seems to me Einstein was all over the place with his thoughts on religion but that’s not the point. reid and I were discussing whether it’s even possible for the law to draw strict rules round what’s a “light smack for the purposes of correction” and what’s an “illegal assault” and had basically agreed (I hope I’m not misrepresenting reid here) that it can’t and one has to rely on – for want of a better shorthand term – common sense.
Then Luc interposed:
In other words, because a physicist and a philosopher disparaged common sense, it was thus a failed mechanism not to be applied to any aspect of human endeavour, least of all law.
When I pointed out that this was merely two opinions, of people who IMHO had no better basis for that opinion than anyone else, Luc suggested that if I didn’t immediately bow to the superior wisdom of these “great thinkers” then who would I listen to, “tramps”?
Leaving aside for the moment that I avoided most of the years NZ lived under Helen and thus have retained the capacity to actually think for myself without needing anyone to tell me what my opinions should be, I responded that some tramps can be very wise – a concept seemingly overlooked by someone who comes here supposedly championing socialist equality.
We now return you to regular programming…
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Rex: as someone once told me, if you’re going to quote people like ‘great thinkers’ to bolster your opinions, it means you’re afraid to have your own. Not sure if that applies to Luc.
But I do agree with you about tramps. As a young journalist in Wellington in the late-60s early-70s I knew of one ‘dero’ who had been an eminent surgeon in the UK. But something went wrong, apparently during or just after WW2, and he had disappeared out to the colonies. He had access to money.
Another was reputed to have been a barrister.
Some years earlier a tramp had turned up at my grandparents’ station in the South Island high country. He was the son of an earl, and incurred my grandmother’s displeasure because of his ‘rough language’ and ‘rough ways’ in her house. So she turfed him out. As one born with ‘advantages’ he should have known better, she said.
Twenty or so years later a British colonel approached my uncle in Cairo during the war, and asked if he was related to my grandmother. Uncle replied that he was her son.
The colonel identified himself and told him that Nana was one of only two women who’d ever told him off — the other had been his, nanny, who, although by then ancient, continued to do so.
Interesting old world …
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 8:17 pm
But there is much more to this case, then people here realise, and the sunday star article definitely didnt resemble what really happened.
This family is a good family, the rest of the children in this family were perfectly fine, the 6 yr old daugther who has cried for her father and his wife (who she calls her favourite mum, because of the actual quality of time she spends with this child, not what materialistic item she can buy her or take her, as time is more important to children than what you can buy them) every week for the last 22 months wanting to come home. A breast feeded baby taken away and only seeing his father for 1 hour a week over the past 20 months.
A wife who wanted to be home with her husband but had to stay with her 1 year old child being moved around from house to house over 20 months and only seeing her husband for 1 or 2 nights a week, who would clearly say what CYFS was trying to do was make her husband out as a monster, was clearly not true.
It doesn’t mention that when the boy was removed they went into CYFS for a meeting and the supervisor told the father in front of the wife if he wasn’t careful that she would come and get the two younger children as well. Which 3 days later they did, because they rang the expartner (mother of the daughter) to get dirt on him and told her that she could have her child back, even though the child was happy living with her father and his wife. What they didn’t tell you was this was the reason why the daughter was picked up and why then the baby boy was picked up all because of jealous ex partners who got caught completely and utterly lieing in the trial.
The fact that this family went to CYFS for help in 2008, and after 2-3 hours of talking with the child and the father individually and together, hearing about the soap put in the mouth, they indicated that they could not help this father and son and did no follow up whatsoever. Even though the father pleaded with CYFS, they said that it was clear that the child just wanted his father all to himself, and it was clear how much the child loved his father and how much the father loved the child.
The truth is the truth and when people lie you have to keep lieing and you will forget. But it’s easy for people to judge here, but when you hear the real story which 12 independnet jurors did, from all different backgrounds, it becomes much different.
The article did not mention the real facts in this case, did not mention that this family do not hit, swear, drink or smoke, or do drugs or yell in their household. It did not mention this husband and wife never argue or raise voices in their home.
It did not mention that this child is from a relationship back in highschool 14 years ago. It did not mention that this father had custody since he was 4, because of the mother not being able to control him. IT did not mention that the mother tried to get custody of this child again in 2007 but the child metnioned how much abuse he received from her and her partner while just visiting for a few weeks, after not seeing her for over a year, eg. Belting him with a belt, whacking him with a spatula, swearing at him, locking him in the room, which is why the father got custody of this child.
It did not mention that this child who was put back with his mother has moved from house to house over the past 22 months, and now a special meeting is being held because he is out of control for his mother, grandparents and extended family. This child is a good boy, but from the very start of this whole saga. It was mentioned that he doesn’t know how to control his anger and needs help. But yet they still not focussing on this and CYFS are more focussed on continuing to hurt this family more.
It did not mention all the time the father spent with this child and how the child just wanted him all to himself. It did not mention the amount of love that was always shown to this child and all the mean and hurtful things this child did to hurt his stepmother and try and send her back to USA. It did not mention how much this father and his wife tried to bring him up. It did not mention all the verbal and emotional abuse that this child received from his ex wife when the father was not home.
It did not say the father also had custody of his daughter as well. It painted a picture of how he is not.
This family is glad that justice prevailed. But there is much more to come, on how this family who is a good family were really treated these past two years and still continue to get treated! Dont take things for face value as there is much more involved.
There are thousands of families that are getting trashed by CYFS who are good parents trying to do their best. But yet you walk down any gang street or rough area, where you see babies running across the roads in their nappies, children surrounded by their fmailies in alcohol and drugs, swearing you name it, and yet these people still have their kids.
You have to wonder why do they still have them? You see alot of parents abusing their kids at the supermarkets or even hitting them in public and you have to wonder what happens at home behind closed doors? yet these gangs and other people still have their children, yet people like this family and many others dont.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 9:01 pm
That history of the boy has me thinking that he will never reform. Something is seriously amiss in his make-up and there is no fixing it.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 9:20 pm
no there is hope, just the path that cyfs has put him is not the right path. If we can get him help, I mean real help by real professionals who dont have a hidden agenda of trying to take down a good family. He has hope. THis kid is a good kid, I very doubt he ever thought that all this would happen because of one good holiday at his mums and wanting to stay there. I believe he probably feels so angry about it all, about never wanting it to go this far at all.
But CYFS has pushed this and pushed this and so have many others to try and prove their case assisted with the police but most definitely failed. Yet this child still hasnt received the proper help he has needed. I know tht this family miss him so much. I know that the father only wants to have a conversation with him to tell him how much he loves this child so that this child doesnt think that his father hates him or blames him for anything. I know that this father blames the system not the child for making things worst and wrecking families instead of helping them.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:29 pm
That wasn’t my intention, Rex, and I can hardly be held accountable for the fact that the god-fanatics come out in force at a comment intended to place the weight of evidence above that of common sense.
I still maintain that view. However, since you don’t like to take the views of great thinkers into consideration, try this instead:
And I read your Einstein quote, and find nothing in it to support allegations of belief in any kind of religion defined by obeisance to a supreme being.
I find his view more akin to that of James Lovelock – the Gaia theory.
Also, in reply to my old sparring partner, the truly biased and anti-Arab Tim_Oz, Einstein was both a Jew and an atheist. I understand that is very common. I hear there is this Israeli joke: 75% of us are atheists but 100% of us believe God gave us the land (Palestine). Actually, they stole it.
caringfather, thank you for your contribution. I’m afraid I find nothing in what you say to support the view that the jury made the right decision. I understand much more, of course, what a trial the child had become, but, while I have great sympathy for the plight of the parents, I don’t condone the father’s actions and the acquittal sends an ominous signal to New Zealand’s children.
However, the decision is in, and I do hope the families involved get all the support they need.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Luc,
When the Uncertainty Principle was put forward to seek to explain something of the then unknowns in physics Einstein did not wholly embrace the notion that randomness or uncertainty could unpin the universe. His attributed comment opposing such randomness at the heart of physics and the universe was “God does not play dice”
So you are saying that an avowed atheist called upon the name of something he didn’t believe in to explain why a scientific hypothesis could not possibly be true. I thought you had Einstein marked as a rational thinker. Are you now suggesting otherwise?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:31 pm
bhudson
Yes. He was speaking metaphorically, as I often do.
In fact, my favourite saying when something really good happens, like a video ref decision going the right way, is: “There is a God!” But everyone knows I don’t mean it.
Einstein was opposed to Quantum Mechanics. I don’t know if he ever accepted it. Do you?
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Yep.
Vote:March 21st, 2011 at 11:42 pm
“He was speaking metaphorically”
Luc, that’s a pretty pathetic attempt even by your standards. I am afraid your atheist scientist ideal was not quite as ideal in his beliefs as you would like. The sadder part is that you seem to think that him not being an atheist would somehow erode his thinking and contributions.
As to my acceptance or opposition to quantum theory, it is neither here nor there. Given the statement was nothing more than a puerile attempt by you to try to expose religious beliefs on my part which would have to see me deny science which might undermine those beliefs, I could just ignore it. But I do accept quantum theory (to the extremely superficial level that I can ‘understand’ it – not my field you see.) I do hope that the quantum theory of gravity that unites the seemingly irreconcilable partial theories of quantum physics and relativity will be found in my lifetime.
Vote:March 22nd, 2011 at 12:11 am
Einstein WAS an atheist.
Vote:March 22nd, 2011 at 12:13 am
Oh, and do you know what unites the “seemingly irreconcilable partial theories of quantum physics and relativity”?
God. Apparently.
Vote:March 22nd, 2011 at 12:16 am
Then God help us!
God is great!
Vote:March 22nd, 2011 at 12:25 am
Kimble,
God? Really? I thought it was more to do with us not yet having the understanding of physics required to bring the theories together.
Vote:March 22nd, 2011 at 12:29 am
Oh! ye of little faith!
I just realised how many people have justified their FAITH to me by PROVING God exists in some way!
Vote:March 22nd, 2011 at 11:39 am
Caring father – “then he decided to use my wife’s hair product…” The amount of detail of the family and the case plus a couple of slips into the first person like this strongly suggest that you are the man in this case.
It sounds a very sad tale but not quite the image of the poor beset middle-NZ family that my aged mother was left with after listening to Michael Laws.
But, leaving aside the internal workings of a family in which all the children had different mothers (a variation on an old theme), what I want to know is – are there no restrictions on jurors discussing cases in this way? I thought they were still bound by court rules after the trial. How much of the deliberations can be divulged?
I’m not sure I’d want to serve on a jury with this woman and certainly wouldn’t want someone like her on any jury that stood in judgement of me or mine. Seems to me that she has a strong political agenda and very likely was such a powerful advocate of her cause that she dominated the deliberations. It happens. Makes trial by judge look very attractive.
Vote:March 22nd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
caringfather, you may like to comment on a later thread related to social workers. From what I have heard they do more harm than good. They are too scared to intervene with gang families where serious abuse occurs. If the government cannot attract older people with some life experience then they could do more harm than good.
This law of John Key is causing a lot of harm to families. It means that good mature people who do not beleive in the anti-smacking are excluded from being social workers.
Dom Post says children first
The Dom Post editorial:
Sometimes there are no good options; just choices between uncertain, least bad and bad options. Such is often the case for social workers dealing with the victims of child abuse. …
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/03/dom_post_says_children_first.html#comments
Vote:March 22nd, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Rex – he must have decided to do that when his attempts to turn it into a climate change debate failed.
Second time lucky I guess.
Vote:March 22nd, 2011 at 11:19 pm
“Seems to me that she has a strong political agenda…”
And you got that from a couple of sentences in which she referred only to the case she deliberated on?
Maybe it is your political bias that is reacting with vehemence to those few sentences?
Try some introspection.
Vote:March 23rd, 2011 at 1:47 pm
“Seems to me that she has a strong political agenda…”
I Agree with Kimble if anyone has served jury duty before you would know that unless the case has been released to the media you don’t know the details.Unless that juror knows the person on trial, which they are asked many questions before if they do know of the case or any of the witnesses to be called by either side, if that is the case then they are dismissed and if on the first day replaced. So tell me have you heard of this case? Have you ever heard of her before? Is she running for office? Did you sit through a ridiculusly long tax payers waste of money? That should be the real issue why has it gone on this long how much money has been wasted?
It is a shame that people are so quick to judge the people involved here as the head juror has knowledge of the case way beyond a few lines in a article which you have based your thoughts on. We should proud that there are those out in our community that are willing to stand up for injustices and not leave it shrouded in secrecy leaving other people vulnerable to having it happen to them. That is the only way that we can preserve the freedom that we all enjoy from brave people such as her. Is the family involved perfect? Obviously not but who are we to criminalize a father who is desperately trying to keep all of his children safe and his wife. Who here is perfect? We are all human and all make mistakes there is not one perfect parent out there and yet this law judges that we are. Based on those that are judging here I would hate to be on my jury if I ever had to endure such a travisty.
Good on the juror for standing up, good on Bob for standing for families as there is probably more then just this case happening. Think if the juror didnt have the guts to stand up and say this is not right we would not know if this case now which makes one think, how many other cases are there? No wonder John Key can turn a blind eye! If there is nothing talked about there is nothing to report. How many others are too scared to stand up against the wave. How many children are being robed of their childhoods? This law is not stopping those who really do harm to their children.
Here she has put her name out there and is holding her ground while you are hiding behind the computer passing judgements. I believe she is an honest and true person one that if I was to know a true friend one you can count on. If she did have a political agenda wouldn’t she have come out straight after this happend? No she is standing tall for those who are suffering and in a world and country like ours I only hope there are more like her who have the guts to speak out! I would say those who are so quick to blame and throw this family in the jail before examining all the facts have an agenda! Also from further reading from Bob I would say anyone who has a blended family (which is a completly different dynamic then a traditional one) should be scared that there ex could turn on them. No one there is listen to you till you get to trial? Who knows you or some one you know could be sitting there next. Wouldnt you want a person like the juror there to help you? Stand tall Juror stand tall!!!! We owe our freedom to brave people like you who stand up for the things that are right!
Vote: