Defending the Indefensible

Christchurch father, James Mason, has been convicted of assaulting his four-year-old-son. Mr Mason pulled the child’s ear and punched him in the face.

Let’s put aside for a second the fact that the media have been reporting this as Mason being tried under the ‘new anti-smacking laws’ for flicking his child’s ear. Principessa has already covered the media fudging on this. What has astounded me is that a father that punched his four-year-old-son in the face may have actually had a form of legal defense under the former Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

This was a father that picked up the kids bikes, threw them against the ground, and then assaulted one of them. This was not a father acting out of love for his children. This was a father that lost his temper when they didn’t do what he wanted them to do and lashed out at a defenseless child.

I’m proud of the previous Labour-led Government (and National for that matter) for supporting the Repeal of Section 59 through Parliament. I sincerely hope the Government will take cases like this into consideration when reviewing the law in the future.

Oh, and I’m waiting for the likes of Bob McCoskrie from Family First to jump to the defense of Mr Mason. Come on – at least be consistent Bob!

UPDATE: Duh, I didn't read the second page of the Herald article. True to form, McCoskie has stated that the virdict was right but wrong. In the same sentance.

Comments

[JakeQuinn]

a great time for my favourite expression "a victory for common sense" ! :)

[Clint Heine]

That was assault, I agree with the verdict. But the law itself is an ass. Kids are still being assaulted and beaten and the law has done nothing to slow this down.

[Ralph Wahrlich]

A couple of things to mention here:

- nobody really expected that the law would, in itself, stop kids being assaulted. People seem to say that, therefore, there's no point in a law at all?! Honestly people! You might as well say that, eg, because some individuals commit murder, that there's no point in making murder illegal. It's about society officially stating that some specific thing is unacceptable. In answer to the predictable cries of "OMG that's social engineering!! How terrible!", well excuse me! A government's job is to take the lead on important issues with this kind of thing surely.

-it drives me nuts the way that the media constantly refer to the bill as "the anti-smacking bill". There was a fantastic article pointing this out about a year or so ago, wish I'd kept it (maybe by Sue Bradford?) To be more accurate, what it does was remove the ability to use disciplinary action as a legal defence against being prosecuted for assault. It doesn't specifically forbid smacking: that was already forbidden anyway as I see it - it's just that you could argue against it, whereas now you can't.

I couldn't agree more strongly with Jeremy's comment that he is astounded about the fact that the man in question would have potentially had a defence at all under the former Section 59!

Speaking from personal experience with my son who just turned four a few days ago... it is crystal clear to me that physical discipline is not necessary; the idea is a nonsense. What works instead is sticking to your boundaries, and using other means of guidance. Imagine hitting your work colleague because they didn't understand something, and got it wrong. Or perhaps they brought in some smelly lunch to their desk. How is it any better to hit a child? It should be seen for what it really is: a cowardly assault on the members of society least able to defend themselves, and most in need of our loving and supportive guidance.

[Jeremy]

"That was assault, I agree with the verdict. But the law itself is an ass. Kids are still being assaulted and beaten and the law has done nothing to slow this down."

You contradict yourself Clint. James Mason has been convicted of assault against his child for punching him in the face. Mr Mason may have had a defense under S59, a defense which has since been removed. That would suggest to me that the law is working exactly how Labour, the Greens and National had intended.

Ralph, hear hear.

[dave]

What has astounded me is that a father that punched his four-year-old-son in the face may have actually had a form of legal defense under the former Section 59 of the Crimes Act.
And that's where you are quite wrong.He wouldn't have.

[Rachel Boyack-Mayer]

Dave, that's where YOU'RE wrong. Case law under the previous law would say that he DID have a defence. People were using the "defence of reasonable force" to get away with worse assaults than this (think crow bars, hose pipes).

Seems like bad law? Yep, that's why it needed to be changed. Good to see it working the way it was intended :-)

Oh and what Ralph and Jeremy said.

[dave]

Oh yes of course he did have a defence. In the same way as someone who knifes a child in the stomach has a defence of reasonable force. Like, not point calling it a "defence" if it is not successful and you can't actually use it. A man who punches a kid in the face would not be successful with a defence of reasonable force. And Rachel, would love the reference - perhaps the case law you claim exists - for someone who got off a charge of using a crowbar by using a reasonable force defence - care to elaborate - or shall I just assume you can't - and are therefore speaking from ignorance.

[W Donald]

so we can cofirm now that James Mason was convicted of punching and not flicking then, or have I missed the bit where it was confirmed to be a punch.
They looked like a very close and happy family to me when I watched them on television.
Rather stressed though but hey never mind the affect this has had on their family.
Read a comment about how you can not smack your children but is a beating out of the question!
I work with children and have done for a number of years and still I see cyps returning children to voilent homes.
It's ment to be better for the child to be in the family enviroment. Whole thing seems very wrong to me.

[Clint Heine]

That's funny, I have seen just as many cases of abuse as we did before Labour and Sue banned us from spanking our kids. In both circumstances everybody had a defence so I'm still confused about the whole idea of the law in the first place.

It's a law for the sake of making one, and one that is against the majority of the population. My wife lived under communist oppression and even she said her Govt would never interfere with how a family bought up their children. The difference was already clear from the start - there didn't need to be a law to distinguish it!

[GetReal]

The repeal of s59 was really about not having confidence in our police and judiciary to make the right decisions. All that has happened is a removal of discretion for the judiciary, basically it was saying 'we don't trust judges to make the right decision'.
It hasn't made a difference to child abuse rates, those that abuse their kids don't stop to think about whether they have a defense, they're just trying to cope with kids and other pressures and don't have sufficient means to deal well with the situation.
What is really needed is for people who care to reach out to these families and help them directly. I mean directly, take some home cooked food, some kid's clothes, some toys and some of your time to go to visit families in low-income areas and strike up friendships with them. Go and share your child-raising experience with them and help them to find better ways to cope.
I'm hoping some people will actually start walking the talk. There's too many finger-pointers and not enough helping hands.

[nznative]

....... oh dear all the pro-hitters of children still seem rather bitter.

The law change was correct,proper and civilized ............. unlike the parents who hit their children.

I've always thought of the law change as being about one of the first steps against violence in general.

No longer can the beaters of children stand in court and say ......." you hit your kids too ".

If as a parent you reley on violence as part of your disipline then your a lazy failure.

Having laws and an attitude which does not tolerate violence against anybody is just civilized common sense.