Section 59
Sue B has had a Private Members’ Bill, which would repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, selected from the Parliamentary ballot. Section 59 gives a legal defence of “reasonable force” to striking your child. So, if the police arrest you for child abuse, and you can convince the jury that that abuse constituted “reasonable force”, then you can get off.
Cases in recent years in which this defence was successfully used include a Napier man who hit his 8-year-old son repeatedly with a plank of wood leaving visible bruising for days; a Hamilton man who hit his 12-year-old daughter with a piece of hosepipe, leaving a raised, red lump on her back; and a North Otago woman who struck her son with a horse whip and bamboo cane.
The problem with the “reasonable force” defence found in Section 59 is both that child abusers get off scot-free when brought to trial, but also that the police are deterred from charging parents they suspect of child abuse because it’s often so hard to get a conviction.
Those afraid - and opponents are already lining up to say this - that repealing Section 59 would criminalise parents who occasionally lightly smack their kids are wrong. European experience of repealing the “reasonable force” defence suggests that significant gains are made in terms of the number of children seriously injured and killed by child abuse, and that police do not go through the homes of ordinary parents and charge them for lightly smacking their kids. Perhaps even more importantly, though, the repeal of Section 59 would send a clear signal that no child abuse is accepted in our society, and outmoded parents who think that bruising and beating their kids is a good way to teach them a lesson will no longer be able to hide behind an arcane law. Politicians talk a lot about New Zealand’s shameful child abuse statistics. Well, now it’s time to do something about them.
How parties will vote on this bill remains to be seen. National and Labour, who have the pivotal votes, may well decide to allow their MPs to exercise their consciences. The Herald and the Dominion Post both suggest that there will be a split between socially conservative and socially liberal MPs on this one. And this despite the fact that, judging on her past comments, Helen Clark’s a firm supporter of the repeal of Section 59 . It will be fascinating to see how it all shakes down.
In the meantime, go have a read of Sue B’s Bill here, factsheet here, and leaflet here.
June 10th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
it’s great sues’ bill made the draw…she was on breakfast tv this morning and rocked the house..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 10th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Frog -
As DPF has pointed out, Section 59 is not a get out of jail free card for sadistic and habitual child abusers and I wish some (not all) repeal advocates would stop presenting it as such.
BTW, I’d love to hear Sue’s opinion on whether the “time out” is emotionally abusive in her book. After all, isn’t isolating a child to secure desitrable behaviour or as punishment just exploiting a child’s fear of physical or emotional abandonment by a parent?
June 11th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
Craig: My take on the ‘time out’ method (not that you asked for it) is that if you isolate the child for a minute or two this gives them time to calm down. They should be placed in somewhere boring but familier - as not to scare them, and even more usefully the door should not be lockable but instead held by the parent, that way when the child trys to leave the boring place to continue thier tantrum they know thier mum/dad is there and detaning them - not deserted them. Surely fear of abandonment only comes into it if the child cannot know you are near by, is in and unsafe place, and/or is left for an unreasonable length of time.