by frog
Beware of pollsters bearing false gifts. The Herald this morning is prominently running a story which claims that 71 percent of voters are opposed to Sue B’s Bill which would repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act. From what Sue B has told me about the actual question the pollster asked, this survey is somewhat misleading. The wording of the question – not provided in the Herald story – did include the word “smacking” and implied that, were Sue B’s Bill to pass, parents who lightly smacked their children would be criminalised.
To see what I mean, consider the following two questions:
1. Do you believe Section 59, which allows parents to use reasonable force to discipline their children, such as smacking, is needed?
2. Would you support the repeal of Section 59, which in recent years has allowed parents to escape prosecution for horse-whipping their kids or smacking their kids with planks of wood, using the “reasonable force” defence Section 59 provides?
Pollsters will tell you that slight changes in the wording of any question asked voters will change the results you get. All I’m saying is that the Section 59 issue, in which proponents and opponents fundamentally disagree on what the outcome of the law change would be, is such that it’s impossible to get a neutral question. The wording of the Herald question seems to have been weighted in the favour of those who claim that Sue B’s Bill would criminalise parents who smack their kids.
To its credit, the Herald acknowledges this complexity. Its story reads:
Auckland University psychologist Associate Professor Fred Seymour said the repeal of section 59 was being confused with the related issue of outlawing hitting children – something the bill would not do.
“If the section 59 situation was explained carefully, the majority would see the sense in it being removed. There is no way police are going to rush out and prosecute parents for smacking their children.”
Professor Seymour said the survey question could have coloured people’s response – prompting them to agree with it – and was complex.
But, regardless of the question asked, what these results do illustrate is that the Greens have a long way to go to get our message across to the public about the virtues of repealing Section 59.
Published in Health & Wellbeing by frog on Sat, July 2nd, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Frog
I susepct you’d get even greater support for the following question:
“Would you support a law amending section 59 to ensure that it cannot be used to allow parents to escape prosecution for horse-whipping their kids or smacking their kids with planks of wood, whilst ensuring that it will not technically make smacking illegal”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
except of course from the Greens…..
You’d even get more suport for this question” Would you support a law amending S59 to ensure that reasonable force in terms of parental discipline is clearly defined, ensuring that parents cannot use implemnts or smack above the shoulders – while ensuring parental discipline is not made illegal.”
People do not believe Cullen cannot afford tax cuts, the same way as they believe this bill will outlaw smacking.
You have hte anti smacking loby to thank for that…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)