Robert

Do you really believe our current crop of psychologist would allow research to show smacking reduces violence? You really don't know how academics work do you. Just look at the dishonest global warming crap.
You write
'Research which I've posted links to previously and which you have ignored shows a clear correlation between high use of smacking to discipline children and later violence in life.'

Children who are smacked at a young age would rarely need 'high' amounts of smacking. Most learn quickly when lovingly disciplined. I have spoken to numerous violent criminals in the past and very few of them were smacked as kids. Well behaved and well adjusted kids and almost without exception they have been disciplined. You see parents who just want to be the kids friend and you find little devils. Today you have 5 year olds telling parents to get.... The little kids know how gutless parents and authorities are. The end result is we drug huge amounts of kids simply because we don't want to face up to their bad behaviour

runner the work I've referenced is by someone with some history of publishing unpopular findings. I do think that he and those he works with will publish the truth, popular or not.

I think that you are too focussed on smacking and not enough on discipline overall. Did the criminals you speak to have clear boundaries and known consequences for breaching those boundaries? That's the place where I see the fundamental difference, just focussing on the one form of discipline does not tell the whole story.

Kind of like saying that you have talked to a lot of starving people and few of them regularly eat dagwood dogs then assuming that eating dagwood dogs causes starvation. It's not the lack of dagwood dogs that killing them, it's the lack of regular food. To stick with the analogy I'd not like to see dagwood dogs outlawed but any parent who uses them as a major portion of a childs diet has got serious issues.

The parents I've known with out of control kids don't do consistant discipline.

R0bert

Mr Stuart: “Evidently NZ politicians find this is surprising, and think the law should be given more time to take effect.”

I do remember it trying to make its way in to law a few years ago in NZ and the child welfare department was well against it. It was only going to increase their workload to stupid proportions if every smacked bum and clipped ear was reported. Bet they’re snowed under now.

StG, there is also emotional abuse and DoCS will remove although it’s a lot harder to prove.

R0bert:”The parents I've known with out of control kids don't do consistant discipline.”

Yeah you have to get up and follow through and have very clear and immediate consequences for bad behavior. And of course the good stuff needs an immediate response too.

In my house I know I’m the one in charge and I rarely negotiate.

Been known to shout though… usually “oi” seems to cover everything and will bring an entire playroom to a grinding halt in a heartbeat.

It would be worthwhile seeing what the law actually entails. There is a big difference between a well placed smack with your hand on a wrist or bottom to a beating.

I must admit I oscillate a bit on this topic. It would be nice to be able to raise children using other forms of discipline - denial of rewards or using praise to emphasise the good rather than focussing on the bad.

But in the real world sometimes a smack is the only option. Parents now are usually both working and tired at the end of the day after picking up kids from childcare and often are out of steam for more creative parenting. It is not an excuse but a just a reality.

The key like any form of discipline is smacking should be last resort and used rarely. Obsessive smacking would have no effect in any case and any effect on behaviour would be nil.

Hi MaryE it is true NZ did make it law you can not smack your kids.
A case just before the court, said a father flicked his kids ear, he was charged on evidence not shared by other witnesses with punching that child in the face.
A different thing but unlikely on the evidence to be true.
Kiwis will chuck the idiot law out, so they should.
My mum would not let dad smack us, she only ever smacked one of her 16 kids, a girl.
I could not discipline my siblings after dad died or the grand kids I helped bring up.
It hurt all of us/them more did harm than good, love can be shown and smacking can be a sign of love and concern.
I often took a hand, gentle as I could pulled a kid to me , held them still and reminded them of what they had done wrong, why I felt they should not do it.
But truly I only ever smacked twice, both times it had to be done over protective grand mother or not.

No one here has yet been able to tell us exactly what this NZ law says. Let's clear this up before any further discussion. Will someone please post a link that shows exactly what the NZ law actually says? I mean, not what someone thinks it says, but what it actually says. Without that information it's surely impossible to offer an informed opinion. If someone doesn't know what it actually says and can't reproduce the text here or a link to it, then surely their comments, pro or against, carry no weight.

Personally, in light of no evidence here that says otherwise, I very much doubt that this NZ law says parents are committing an offence if they give their child a light smack on the bum. But I can't really give an informed comment on that NZ law, because just like everyone else here, I don't know exactly what that law really says.

Someone here seems to think it's ok to give a child a clip on the ear. Attacks to the head of a child like that can actually cause severe injury, as can shaking and harder blows. Whereas a firm smack on the bum is harmless. It's good to understand the difference between abuse and discipline.