Sue Bradford currently has a bill before Parliament to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act - the section that provides a legal defense against assault for discipling your children. Her bill, the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, is currently before the Justice and Electoral select committee, has a closing date for submissions of the end of the month, and will be reported back to the house at the end of August (baring any extensions).
This bill is justified, Sue Bradford claims, because currently parents apparently abuse their children and get away with it due to this section of the law. Removing it necessary to catch child abusers and regular parents who lightly smack their children as an act of discipline would not get caught up in the law change.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act is fairly simple:
59. Domestic discipline—
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.
Subsection (1) says that force is justified to discipline a child if you are their parent or in the place of their parent. Subsection (2) means that there is an objective standard of reasonableness - just because the parent says it is reasonable does not make it so. Finally, subsection (3) is a reference to the ban on corporal punishment at schools.
I would have though that this was fine as it stands. Obviously hitting a child around the head with an object is not going to be objectively reasonable and so section 59 would not apply. I am not convinced that hundreds of child abusers are getting away with it because of this escape clause.
Further, I do not agree with Sue Bradford or the Prime Minister that repealing section 59 would not turn most parents into criminals if they lightly smack their children. Well, yes it would. Smacking is technically assault, and the only reason that it is currently not a criminal offense is because of section 59. Now if that was repealed then a large number of parents could be arrested and changed. Probably the police would not do so, but then it seems that the law is a farce - you know that most people are breaking it but the police are just choosing not to prosecute.
I do not think that is acceptable. The law should be clear in what it means and how it will be enforced. Repealing a section, but claiming that it will not be enforced in most places makes for disrespect of the law, and no transparency or clarity.
Having said all that, I would support a rewrite of section 59 to make it clear what is and is not reasonable. It could specifically state that a light smack on the bottom is acceptable, but punching or assaulting with any sort of weapon is definately not.
That would give clarity, and would remove any supposed defense currently available to child abusers.
This bill is justified, Sue Bradford claims, because currently parents apparently abuse their children and get away with it due to this section of the law. Removing it necessary to catch child abusers and regular parents who lightly smack their children as an act of discipline would not get caught up in the law change.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act is fairly simple:
59. Domestic discipline—
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.
Subsection (1) says that force is justified to discipline a child if you are their parent or in the place of their parent. Subsection (2) means that there is an objective standard of reasonableness - just because the parent says it is reasonable does not make it so. Finally, subsection (3) is a reference to the ban on corporal punishment at schools.
I would have though that this was fine as it stands. Obviously hitting a child around the head with an object is not going to be objectively reasonable and so section 59 would not apply. I am not convinced that hundreds of child abusers are getting away with it because of this escape clause.
Further, I do not agree with Sue Bradford or the Prime Minister that repealing section 59 would not turn most parents into criminals if they lightly smack their children. Well, yes it would. Smacking is technically assault, and the only reason that it is currently not a criminal offense is because of section 59. Now if that was repealed then a large number of parents could be arrested and changed. Probably the police would not do so, but then it seems that the law is a farce - you know that most people are breaking it but the police are just choosing not to prosecute.
I do not think that is acceptable. The law should be clear in what it means and how it will be enforced. Repealing a section, but claiming that it will not be enforced in most places makes for disrespect of the law, and no transparency or clarity.
Having said all that, I would support a rewrite of section 59 to make it clear what is and is not reasonable. It could specifically state that a light smack on the bottom is acceptable, but punching or assaulting with any sort of weapon is definately not.
That would give clarity, and would remove any supposed defense currently available to child abusers.
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: