Euthanasia case in NZ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-06-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(07-06-2015 05:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-06-2015 05:02 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I see you still haven't educated yourself.
Go away and educate yourself before you try talking about a topic you clearly know little about.
Once you do that you can come back and try again.
Laughable!

Just like your posts in this thread.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2015, 09:00 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 02:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This makes a mockery of the law, justice system and courts. It gives our police the ability to be judges and to overrule or ignore the law.

The police do that every day, anyway. Yes, yours do too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2015, 09:28 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
Here is the referendum question:
Quote:Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Here is the law before amendment:
Quote:59 Domestic discipline
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.

Here is the law after amendment
Quote:(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
© preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

So it seems simple enough:
1. The referendum question has no textual relationship to the change in law
2. Nothing in the law makes smacking a criminal offence
3. The change to the law removes "using force by way of correction" as a defence against the charge of assault. If you assault your child using force by way of correction you have assaulted your child. If you have not assaulted your child using force by way of correction is not criminalised. So what constitutes assault in NZ?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2015, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2015 09:47 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(07-06-2015 09:00 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(06-06-2015 02:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This makes a mockery of the law, justice system and courts. It gives our police the ability to be judges and to overrule or ignore the law.

The police do that every day, anyway. Yes, yours do too.
Not without this law. If an assault crime is committed and a person decides to press charges then the police are obliged to write up the report, the police don't have a choice on the matter. The case goes before a judge. The judge decides based on the foundation of the law.

With item 4 the police can nix the process even if the victim wants to press charges.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2015, 09:43 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(07-06-2015 09:28 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Here is the referendum question:
Quote:Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?


So it seems simple enough:
1. The referendum question has no textual relationship to the change in law
2. Nothing in the law makes smacking a criminal offence
Your statements are incorrect.


Item 2 of the law "(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."

This means that a smack "force" cannot be used for the purpose of correction. This is what a smack is, it is used for purposes of correction as opposed to grabbing a child's arm and forcibly dragging them away from a swimming pool area for purposes of safety.
A smack is almost always for purposes of correction.
The law now has smacking as being illegal, even by the parent, even if it is a light smack, meant to scare rather than to hurt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2015, 10:06 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(07-06-2015 09:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-06-2015 09:28 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Here is the referendum question:


So it seems simple enough:
1. The referendum question has no textual relationship to the change in law
2. Nothing in the law makes smacking a criminal offence
Your statements are incorrect.


Item 2 of the law "(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."

This means that a smack "force" cannot be used for the purpose of correction. This is what a smack is, it is used for purposes of correction as opposed to grabbing a child's arm and forcibly dragging them away from a swimming pool area for purposes of safety.
A smack is almost always for purposes of correction.
The law now has smacking as being illegal, even by the parent, even if it is a light smack, meant to scare rather than to hurt.

You're not getting it.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2015, 10:26 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(07-06-2015 09:28 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  2. Nothing in the law makes smacking a criminal offence
..and interestingly enough, under NZ law, even forcibly carrying your child into "naughty corner" for timeout is illegal as this is force for the purpose of correction.

It makes a mockery of NZ law.
It really is silly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 06:26 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
I have no dog in this smacking fight at all. But, as a lawyer, I will say that any law that provides for discretion in its interpretation and enforcement is a bad law, no matter how righteous its intent. Subjectivity leads to inconsistent outcomes, and inevitably to injustice. There is a difference between selective enforcement of a law, like in Muffs speeding example, and a law that requires the police to determine when it is broken based on their own judgment.

I get the point Muffs is making but it reads to me that the NZ parliament blew it with how they solved the problem.

As for euthanasia, I'm for the right to die, but I think the objections are not just religious based. I also think you need to be really careful. What about someone who is depressed and living with constant mental anguish? Do they have a right to painless suicide? How and where do you draw the lines?

The problem is the topic always comes up when there is an easy example. A person has a brain tumor, 6 months or less to live, it's going to be a painful ending, and how could anyone question the morality of letting them end it all? But, if we just opened the door for this, I suspect those types of examples would be the minority. I also suspect that you would find families bigger drivers for this than you may imagine.

I'm generally for the idea, but I think you need to be really careful with the implementation.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 06:31 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(08-06-2015 06:26 AM)BnW Wrote:  I have no dog in this smacking fight at all. But, as a lawyer, I will say that any law that provides for discretion in its interpretation and enforcement is a bad law, no matter how righteous its intent. Subjectivity leads to inconsistent outcomes, and inevitably to injustice. There is a difference between selective enforcement of a law, like in Muffs speeding example, and a law that requires the police to determine when it is broken based on their own judgment.

I get the point Muffs is making but it reads to me that the NZ parliament blew it with how they solved the problem.

As for euthanasia, I'm for the right to die, but I think the objections are not just religious based. I also think you need to be really careful. What about someone who is depressed and living with constant mental anguish? Do they have a right to painless suicide? How and where do you draw the lines?

The problem is the topic always comes up when there is an easy example. A person has a brain tumor, 6 months or less to live, it's going to be a painful ending, and how could anyone question the morality of letting them end it all? But, if we just opened the door for this, I suspect those types of examples would be the minority. I also suspect that you would find families bigger drivers for this than you may imagine.

I'm generally for the idea, but I think you need to be really careful with the implementation.

Check out "death with dignity" in Oregon. Its been in effect for a good while and it works very well.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2015 07:03 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(07-06-2015 09:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-06-2015 09:28 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  1. The referendum question has no textual relationship to the change in law
2. Nothing in the law makes smacking a criminal offence
3. The change to the law removes "using force by way of correction" as a defence against the charge of assault. If you assault your child using force by way of correction you have assaulted your child. If you have not assaulted your child using force by way of correction is not criminalised.

Item 2 of the law "(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."

This means that a smack "force" cannot be used for the purpose of correction. This is what a smack is, it is used for purposes of correction as opposed to grabbing a child's arm and forcibly dragging them away from a swimming pool area for purposes of safety.
A smack is almost always for purposes of correction.
The law now has smacking as being illegal, even by the parent, even if it is a light smack, meant to scare rather than to hurt.

This section of the law deals with justification for assault. It does not criminalise any action. It removes previously admissible justification for assault. Force for the purpose of correction can no longer be used as a justification for assault.

Let's see if an analogy will help here. Let's say that murder is illegal, except in cases of spousal murder wherein it is justified. Say we now scrub the justification clause. We replace it with "nothing justifies the use of force against a spouse"

Do you think this change to the law prohibits rough sex?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: