MaryE,

Well, you keep changing the goal posts. Your first question was:

"...does the New Zealand law stop parents from merely hitting their kids on the bum and that sort of thing?"

You've been given that answer NUMEROUS times but a few people. The you needed the ACTUAL Act. You got that too. Then you needed the Act explained because it seemed to didn't quite understand that you're presumed guilty until you prove yourself otherwise. Which is undemocratic, by the way. There's only ONE other crime in law where you need to do that. But you got THAT explained. You got explained global comparison against the basic humanity of the law, which you disregard. You got explained the irrelevance of how many have been charged due to the absolute HIGH risk of being confronted by Police over allegations.

Did you know that many jobs need a detailed description of how many times you've been questioned by Police. Joining the Police is one. There's many examples of Police questioning over smacking you can find in a basic online search.

NOW, you need a list of people with conviction. *rolls eyes*

What's next, you get that then how many have committed suicide over it?.

Anyway, your question:

"Can anyone produce even one instance over the past 2 years in NZ where a parent has been arrested, found guilty and sentenced for giving their child a mild smack on the bum?"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2098497.htm?section=justin

In case you bring up jailing. Anything that warrants jailing is more than likely actual abuse based the lax treatment sentencing gets. Jailing offences are usual where physical damage, and or mental (which goes hand in hand, really), which is bodily harm, or grievous bodily harm, or repeat offences. If those situations happen they deserve jailing.

So where are we moving the posts too now?.

Mary: “…when I say I support smacking I'm only talking about very mild smacking, just something mild that produces a quick sting and nothing more…”

Only if said child happens to be in a vegetative state. I did tell a big lie about not smacking, I have slapped the odd hand away from hot stove… just didn’t think of it in terms of actual smacking. But I think the NZ law did acknowledge a parent reacting in fear as acceptable even if it didn’t name the emotion that stops dangerous behavior.

If the law was better thought out it would have also had age or stage appropriate guidelines. It also neglected to address children that are say autistic or born with downs syndrome.

This is where Belly would probably hit the roof along with many other parents.

StG, your information has helped me, thank you for your efforts. I don’t want you to stop but you are starting to sound like me with kids, gets to a point when I’ve had enough of explaining something over and over and telling them how to do it so I go do it myself and feel damn resentful about it.

I know I’m doing it, I hear myself complain about it and then usually do it all over again a few hours later.

High five.

I've never slapped, hit or smacked my kids and neither has my husband. Every discipline situation has been judged on its own merits and the use of physical force never came into it. They are now in their late teens and are beautiful, independent and caring young men.

Having said that ... on a social level, the issue is much more complex than the passing of a law. At this stage, most opinion polls I've read over the years reveal an overwhelming majority in Australia are opposed to the introduction of such a law. Parental egos are still very much bound up in the 'right' to smack their kids. Also, such a law opens up a whole new can of worms in bitter divorce battles.

Unless and until there is a borderline or majority in Australia who are opposed to the physical discipline of children and want such a law in place, its introduction is more than likely to prove counterproductive.

TPP,

Thankyou. I've been made out to look like a wan*er in the process. lol

*chips the ball in the air for someone else to have a go*

Hello STG, please go back and actually read what the NZ law states. A person charged is NOT presumed guilty as you have stated. The guilt, or innocence status, of the charged person is no different than if that person was charged with any other offence. That's a fact which you've been in denial about. It's also a fact that, just like all other offences, the police in a child smacking case have to prove guilt in order to gain a conviction. Just like ALL other offences. This you have also been in denial about. The facts are, it's perfectly legal for a NZ parent to smack a child, even though you continually deny that.

STG, really now, your very own link showed that the problem with the father was that he angrily manipulated his son's shoulder resulting in bruising. Photos were taken of the bruising. He rightly ended up in court, and he rightly was compelled to undergo anger management treatment. He "assaulted" his son. He didn't just give him a mild smack. So, you've been unable to present even ONE case of a parent being charged and convicted of merely giving the child a mild smack. That says it all STG.

I repeat, if you are charged in NZ you are not presumed to be guilty. If you are charged in NZ the police or prosecutors have to prove guilt if you are to be convicted. They are the facts STG, whether or not you approve. Thank you STG.

Ok.