So, Belly, this thread was prompted by that Law Report thing on the same issue, eh? It was a good show, but then the Law Report generally is.

One issue not discussed here is how it changes the role of the police. My rather simplistic view of the role of the police has been rather black and white. They catch people breaking the law and hand them over to the courts. It is not their role to decide "how badly" you were breaking the law - that is the role of the Judiciary. We put all sorts mechanisms to ensure the Judiciary do this fairly: open courts, jury's, insistence on the Judge providing their reasoning in writing, insistence on representation.

Now (for the first time?) NZ has a law that put the police in that role - but without all those protective mechanisms we have for the courts. The police get to make a judgement about "how badly" you were breaking the law. So it a policewoman sees her ex smacking their kid during a acrimonious divorce - prosecute him. But their sister - not as likely. And this behaviour is actually allowed by the law as it is written. To put it another way, before if you had firm evidence of someone breaking the law, the DPP are compeled to prosecute the case if there is a good likelihood of success.

But not now. This is not so much rule of law, as rule of whim.

Yes the law report is always value.
Some posts in the thread seemed a bit shallow, limited understanding of the issues, but that could be said about most threads.
Pieded Piper yes true, but wrong, many here in this forum have called for changes, that we Aussies should have something like this here.
But if 80% can be over ruled by just a few?
It proves we all must demand a say over such as this greens lady.
However we are unlikely to ever get it, even on polling day other issues weld us to such as her.
Laws are sometimes not worth obeying this is such a law.
I find it interesting, the thought a cop would use the uniform to win a private fight.
Very true, seen it often, seen the little woman in country towns informing locals she woulds tell her husband.

Hey Belly, what I don’t get is that this woman says the question is wrong. 8 mil spent on the wrong question is a bit mind boggling. I was left kind of staring at it thinking oh the twats. Not that I can see why she said the question was so flawed that the result is meaningless.

Question: “Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

That police thing though – often it is the police that decide if they’re going to arrest you or let you go isn’t it?

The Pied Piper: "often it is the police that decide if they’re going to arrest you or let you go isn’t it?"

True. But when they decide whether to let you go or not, one hopes that are basing they decision on whether prosecution is likely to succeed. If they don't and their judgement is called into question, this is standard they are held against. As a standard it has a lot going for it - not in the least that it is so simple everyone can understand it. You don't need a law degree.

Consider the case where they arrest the leader of the opposition for some crime. If they do this, and the resultant prosecution fails, all hell will break loose. If they don't prosecute, and it later becomes obvious they had enough evidence they had enough information to prosecute, it is probably some police will at the very least be out of a job.

Now consider the case where the leader of the NZ opposition gives his kids a flick across the ear when the threatens to ride his push bike down a steep mountain bike trail after being explicitly told not to several times. These is no hard line in the sand by which we can judge the police officers decision - one way or the other. Was it because of their personal political views? What it because they were "instructed" to do it in a particular way? Who knows. They don't have to explain their actions, as the law says they in this case they get to pass judgement on the severity of the crime. If they deem the flick to child abuse, the law says it is. If they say its not - then it isn't. They are the final arbiter this part of the law - not the judge or a jury.

Rstuart, me being a foster mum I have this Duty of Care thing which confuses me no end. I am required to report if a child is not being cared for adequately or is at risk of harm. Also I cannot watch it happen I must do what I am able to prevent it if needed in the moment.

But then I have to work out in each and every situation what “adequate” means.

Normally it isn’t something I think about as I don’t come in to contact with any of the kids parents. But a new situation has meant I need to be thinking of this Duty of Care thing all the time. Personally it’s driving me a bit mental and I imagine the police deal with the same dilemma regularly.

Instead of arresting I need to report within context what happened, how it happened and then it is up to the caseworkers whether further action is taken if they considered it serious enough.

I bet new police officers arrest everyone just in case and leave it up to higher authority. Probably a bit sad for the parents until it is sorted, then you’ll get the officers who think the whole thing is crazy and turn a blind eye. I was thinking the CYFS hotline has probably gone berserk since the law came in but if so many Kiwi’s don’t like the law they’re likely to not be using it to nark on anyone.

Sorry I know you want to talk with a clearer understanding of law whereas I always seem to take things apart until you’re probably left with whether someone is having a good day or a bad day.

The Pied Piper: "Sorry I know you want to talk with a clearer understanding of law whereas I always seem to take things apart until you’re probably left with whether someone is having a good day or a bad day."

If what you are saying is: "while we try to define the bright lines, the world in reality is a very blury place that isn't compatible with firm lines in the sand", then it looks pretty clear to me. And you are right.

The Pied Piper: "I have this Duty of Care thing which confuses me"

The problem with the smacking law is very similar, which I guess was your point. Before they had a law that said "reasonable force" was allowed. The courts got to define what was reasonable, which given the checks and balances we have on the courts isn't a bad thing. Also they have the resources to deal with such a burden. They can call on expert witnesses, and they get to hear opinions from both sides of the story. The law now shifts the burden of deciding what is reasonable to the police. The oversight has gone, and unlike the courts they are a single individual acting alone. The best they can do is base their decisions on common sense and instinct.

I am not really interested in the finer points of the law. Unlike MaryE I know my limits, and fine points of law is well beyond them. But the law aside, shifting the burden of judgement to the police like this for the sake of political expediency seems just wrong. If they want to ban smacking, then have the guts to make it illegal. If they want to leave it up to "community standards" without defining what they are, then leave it in the hands of the courts who are equiped to deal with that sort of ambiguity.

As you say, leaving it to individuals like yourself to sort out what "a child is not being cared for adequately" means is a very big ask. So big it is asking for trouble.