Monday, May 25, 2009

Clear as mud - S59

NZ Child Protection Specialists (CPS), whoever they are, put out a press release today attempting to clarify the confusion they claim exists over the removal of section 59;

Mrs Simcock likes to use an analogy around school attendance to help people understand and not fear the law.

“It is illegal in New Zealand to not send your child to school. I am sure every parent has, for some reason, kept their child away from school before. No one ever expects that all parents will be charged and made criminals because of those one or two days that most parents have kept their children away from school.

However, we DO expect that those parents who intentionally and repeatedly keep their children out of school, or allow their children to be repeatedly truant, should be dealt with according to the law. These parents are jeopardising the social, academic and pshycological future of their children.”


How does that work? One could just as easily claim that retaining section 59 - the ability to claim a defence of using reasonable force - is analogous to the law regarding school attendance. Ergo, it is illegal to not send your child to school (it is illegal to strike your child) except when reasonable circumstances dictate (except when the force used is reasonable in the circumstances).

I don't believe the public is confused. They know there is now legally no defence at all for smacking a child because smacking constitutes assault. The only uncertainty lies in whether the police will prosecute or look the other way.

2 comments:

Swimming said...

her first statement was "It was unfortunate that this case was the one that tested the law"

That's the first bit of misinformation. the Judge even told the jury not to treat it as such.

"automatically implies that any smack should be a criminal offence, which is not at all the intent of the legislation"

that's the second bit of minformation. Law is law. People have intent.

This person is clearly confused - a misinformed informant of misinformation.

Anonymous said...

The only uncertainty lies in whether the police will prosecute or look the other way.
Except after the "Christchurch Smacking Case" that is no longer uncertain: the police will prosecute, and especially will prosecute if a do-gooding, labour-voting, childless busybody shops you for trying to stop you kids hurting themselves!

National has changed nothing. No law repeals. No tax cuts (actually - tax INCREASES). We're still in Clarkistan!