Your Views hits new low

Written By: - Date published: 3:00 pm, May 20th, 2009 - 21 comments
Categories: child discipline, Media - Tags: ,

The Herald is currently asking its readers: “Is a conviction appropriate for punching a child?”

punchydad

Seriously, what the hell is wrong at the Herald when they think that’s a question that needs to be asked?

21 comments on “Your Views hits new low ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. edoze 1
    20 May 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Fuck i hate the herald.

    I reckon this site is better than those morons half the time and boy howdy thats some assertion!

  2. Nih 2
    20 May 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Neither Stuff nor the Herald could hold themselves back from associating this case with the anti-smacking law.

    Even in light of the fact that assault was still assault prior to the law change and the judge directed the jury to ignore the false connection to the anti-smacking law change, the various news outlets blurted out the most sensational thing they could.

    Then the sun rose and the sky was blue.

    No respect for pseudo-journalism here.

  3. tsmithfield 3
    20 May 2009 at 3:18 pm

    As I understand it the charge he was found guilty on covered both the flicking and the punching aspects, so it is not clear what the jury actually found him guilty of.
    If he was found guilty of the punching part, then clearly he deserved to be charged. If it was the flicking aspect, then he could probably consider himself hard done by.

    A point that seems to have been missed is, as I understand it, his children were aged two and three at the time of the offending.

    So, what is a father doing allowing children of that age to be riding bikes on the road? Surely that is a much more serious matter than the assault given the potential consequences.

  4. mickysavage 4
    20 May 2009 at 3:18 pm

    Can I surprise everyone by saying that on this particular occasion I believe the question is appropriate. The question is not whether he should have been charged but whether after a hearing he should automatically be convicted.

    There may be extenuating circumstances. The person could have an otherwise unblemished record and have reacted poorly while under intense stress, the child may not be hurt and the family unit may be intact. The person may face the loss of their job if convicted to the detriment of the family.

    The justice system ought to be able to show compassion from time to time and discharge offenders without a conviction, even in cases of child assault.

    • Tigger 4.1
      20 May 2009 at 3:33 pm

      micky has a point – eg. self-defence (if a 10 year old is attacking me or my loved ones with a weapon you’d bet I’d punch them) – but that’s pretty much the whole point.

      That said, these online polls are stupid and pointless – I know of at least one Nat party hack who has a programme designed to vote hundreds of times in them – I assume the Left might do the same.

    • Ethical Martini 4.2
      20 May 2009 at 8:19 pm

      He wasn’t “automatically” convicted. A jury of seven men and five women found him guilty.
      That’s important SEVEN MEN, that is a clear majority and even they didn’t let him off.

      The worst part of the media coverage is the constant referral to the “anti-smacking” bill. That’s not what it is and to call it such just plays into the hands of the loonytune dribblejaws who would drag us (even further) back into the dark ages.

  5. Slick Rick 5
    20 May 2009 at 3:21 pm

    micky. Would you approve of the question

    “Is a conviction appropriate for punching a woman/black/homosexual/jew?’

    • mickysavage 5.1
      20 May 2009 at 3:29 pm

      Rick

      Yes for the same reasons. I am saying that a “limp wristed touchy feely” response by a sentencing Judge is sometimes appropriate. We are not talking about being charged or being found guilty, but how the person is sentenced after both of these things have happened. Clemency will sometimes be appropriate.

      The Court has the power to discharge a person without a conviction even after being found guilty and I believe that this power ought to be preserved, even in cases involving the punching of a child.

      Most of the time a conviction will be appropriate. There may be special occasions where this should be avoided.

  6. serpico 6
    20 May 2009 at 3:41 pm

    Interesting to see what the judge decides at sentence time? The smart money is on discharge without conviction. Surely the children and dad have endured enough negative publicity. The family will suffer, but who cares eh as long as the sisterhood -nanny state is happy.

    • Nih 6.1
      20 May 2009 at 6:48 pm

      ‘Sisterhood nanny state’? You DO realise National is in government, right?

      Apart from that you seem unhappy when faced with the prospect of having the outcome that you believe is right.

      Dogs. Once you teach em to bark, they just never stop.

  7. BeShakey 7
    20 May 2009 at 4:13 pm

    “The smart money is on discharge without conviction.” Unlikely. My bet would be a suggestion of anger management and some community work.

  8. Ron 8
    20 May 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Agreed with BeShakey. It’ll be community work because despite what many say the system is pretty good at working through these issues.

    He was convicted of assaulting a little kid. He should be. No-one was seriously hurt, the family seems intact, he seems to be over it – community hours. easy and appropriate.

  9. Maynard J 9
    20 May 2009 at 5:20 pm

    Can you be sentenced without conviction? Ie AM course but no permanent record? or is it the case that if there is any punishment there must be a conviction?

    mickysavage I do see your point too, remembering that “conviction” is a very specific thing, as opposed to being found guilty or being charged in the first case.

    But still…

    • mickysavage 9.1
      20 May 2009 at 5:26 pm

      Maynard J

      Not unless the Judge put the case off for 6 months for the defendant to do anger management voluntarily on the understanding that a discharge would then follow. This is a possibility.

  10. aj 10
    20 May 2009 at 5:46 pm

    What cheers me, is that the police, witnesses AND the jury know the difference between a punch and a smack.
    There is hope for humanity yet.

  11. Relic 11
    20 May 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Have not detected a comment from ‘Spankin Rankin’ yet on this one, Mcroskrie and McVicar are flat tyre like also.

  12. The Glob that is The Gisborne Herald 12
    20 May 2009 at 8:11 pm

    Ain’t read nothing from above comments, just back from th pub, But

    Depends how hard you punch the kid in the face,

    how much the kid weighs

    how much you ( the puncher) weighs,

    what mitigating factors come into play Like;

    DISTRAUGHT partner/wife or others drag on arm thereby affecting the resultant impact intended…

    Could intervention mean more lighter hits?

    it’s all a bit sik mates. Stop the hits.

    Play Safe

    ffs – captcha: scotsman factor