Category: Correspondence

TWO SUCCESSIVE POLICE COMMISSIONERS HAVE AFFIRMED THAT, SHOULD SECTION 59 BE REPEALED, WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED TO BE REASONABLE FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTION, EG. SMACKING, WILL BE CONSIDERED ASSAULT BEFORE THE LAW, AND HENCE, OPEN TO PROSECUTION. Click on link below to see their responses: c-with-c-of-police.pdf police-on-correction.pdf

Question: Let’s change Section 59 by adding clear definitions of what unreasonable force is, so that this section of the Crimes Act could never be used to excuse child abuse. Answer Section 59 is never used to excuse child abuse. That’s why it was formulated and placed in the Crimes Act in the first place.…

Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 10:50 p.m. I am totally disappointed that you do not see children as human beings, vulnerable ones at that, with the right to protection from violence. So, an adult hits another adult, they are undisciplined! An adult hits a child, and they are disciplined! Your argument does not add up.…

Question Why are you concerned about the Repeal of Section 59? I don’t understand your concern about the repeal of Section 59. Surely you don’t really think that parents who smack their children are going to be hounded, harrassed, scrutinised, or charged with a criminal offence as a result? Please think seriously about the real…