LoginHome » News » Spanz Magazine » All Issues » June 2006 » Is it OK to smack our children?
Is it OK to smack our children?
There is heated debate about whether Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961), which allows parents to use "reasonable force" to discipline their children, should be repealed. sPanz canvases views from both sides of the debate.
The case for repeal...
Abbreviated from the March 2006 issue of Broadsheet, the news publication of the Churches’ Agency on Social Issues.
Is the repeal of Section 59 just another example of political correctness, social engineering and the undermining of Christian society by Godless secularists? Churches Agency on Social Issues members discussing the issue are unanimous in their support for the repeal of Section 59.
We have two main reasons for this: the first, and most basic, is the theological one. The core of the Gospel message is that God in love for creation chooses to forgive rather than to punish. God as Heavenly Father does not punish us as we deserve, but chooses rather to offer us the path of grace and forgiveness. We as parents must apply the same principle to our children.
God is too often represented as One who judges and punishes, in images drawn from some Old Testament passages. A truer representation, even of the Old Testament understanding of God, is that God’s justice aims more at restoration and reconciliation than retribution.
Jesus reserves some of his harshest words for those who mistreat children (Matthew 18:6). Paul urges fathers not to “provoke (their) children, or they may lose heart” (Colossians 4:21 ). The authority of Christian parents should not be dependent on the sanction of physical punishment. Rather it should be based on love, respect and relationship. These all have to be earned, even by parents, rather than enforced.
Our second argument for the repeal of Section 59 is that this clause gives the wrong starting point for any discussion on child nurture and discipline. Section 59, as it stands, starts the discussion with the assumption that physical punishment is not just acceptable, but parents’ right. The discussion then focuses on what is “reasonable force”, rather than on the wider issues of how to build good discipline in the family. The intention of repeal is not to criminalise smackers or to ban smacking. The problem is when things go wrong, parents who react with violence have the defence that what they did was good parenting. Lots of examples are quoted on both sides, with cases that have used Section 59 both in good and bad ways, but still the focus is on what punishment is right, rather than on appropriate discipline.
Discipline and punishment are not the same thing. Discipline is about building good lifestyle habits by rewarding, encouraging and modelling in our own lives those things that are best. It is about teaching our children to respect the rights and freedoms of others. Punishment is the last resort of failed discipline. Punishment does not have to be physical. The problem with forceful punishment in the family context is that it tends to explode out of frustration and anger, rather than being a reasoned or reasonable response. If a parent starts with an understanding that they have a right to use physical punishment, it is too easy for the situation to boil over into abuse.
In New Zealand we have seen too many cases of family violence, too many children badly beaten. To those parents who argue that they have a right to use physical punishment, and that they do so reasonably and appropriately, I can only paraphrase the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians by saying that if that right causes another parent to stumble and a child to be abused, then I would rather give up that right.
Paul Thompson is the Research and Liaison Officer for the Churches’ Agency on Social Issues. CASI is the official social responsibility agency for the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand , the Methodist Church of New Zealand, The Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Aotearoa New Zealand. Their website is www.casi.org.nz.
The case against repeal…
This is an excerpt from the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards’ select committee submission on the proposed repeal of section 59.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) authorises “every parent of a child … and every person in the place of the parent of the child” to use “force by way of correction towards the child, if the force is reasonable in the circumstances.”
The Society strongly opposes the repeal of section 59. If it was repealed in its entirety, we agree with Dr A Jack of the Legal Services Office of the Commissioner Of Police (NZ), who says “parents would not be authorised (or “justified”) to use reasonable force by way of correction, and smacking by way of corrective action would be constituted an assault”.
With section 59 repealed a parent would have no defence in law against a charge of assault laid against him or her under sub-section 194 or 196 of the Crimes Act (1961). This was illustrated on the recent Sunday documentary ( 9 April 2006 ). Two foster parents were both convicted of common assault (under s196) in the Greymouth District Court, for lightly smacking on the hand with a wooden spoon, a foster boy in their full-time care. This was done as punishment for doing $6,000 of wilful vandalism to other people’s property, which they had to pay for.
The terms “reasonable” force and “reasonableness of the force” should be retained and do not need any further qualification other than what is already contained in that section - “reasonable in the circumstances”.
The Society believes that juries are more than capable of comprehending the concept of “reasonableness of the force” in “domestic discipline” and that it constitutes “a question of fact”; as well as the importance of considering all relevant “circumstances” specified in section 59. Furthermore, juries understand the need for the firm, consistent and fair corrective discipline of children and their application of commonsense when asked on the rare occasion (on average about 1.4 cases per year) to consider any section 59 defence.
Opinion polls have consistently shown that about 80 percent of New Zealanders completely oppose the repeal of section 59. If it is repealed, despite widespread opposition, the Society contends that a public referendum must be held confirming widespread support for this change, before it can become law.
Repealing section 59 would be injurious to the public good, exacerbating the current tragic breakdown in families, loss of control in schools and the generational effects of a write-down of parental control and responsibility.
The special role and important God-given duty of parents to apply corrective discipline toward their children for wrongdoing, inappropriate behaviour such as bullying, open and repeated defiance and abuse, serious property damage, stealing and more would be completely undermined by the repeal of section 59. It would abrogate the rights of all good parents to be protected in law against spurious claims of child abuse and assault brought against them by persons who wish to use the law to try and take the rights of good parents away from them, and impose their own narrow ideologies on them.
The judgement of Judge Inglis QC (Family Court, Auckland, 2003) is highlighted to show the importance of the section 59 defence against allegations that the limited use of smacking in corrective discipline, makes a parent, or in this case an outstanding foster parent (“Mrs C”), unfit to care for children.
The Society states as its primary objective “promoting balance between responsible freedom of expression and the limits placed by censors on the availability of material that is injurious to the public good”. Check out more details at SPCS’ website http://spcs.org.nz/content/view/81/38 / .