Sue Bradford resigned

*LIKE* Simsam

I'm please shes gone never liked her shes off to live on her pension now.

No way, no how, should a child live in prison. It's completely ridiculous IMO. If you cared for your kids at all, you wouldn't land yourself in jail. I don't care what other people think, it's ridiculous to assume a child under 2 is better off in jail with a convicted criminal looking after them, and being surrounded by god knows who, than with other family. Just nuts. And as for the breastfeeding thing - you get that right taken away from you when you go to jail - tough sh*t, you do the crime, you do the time. You shouldnt' get special treatment for having a kid, and your child shouldn't be punished for having an idiot for a mother.

Sue Bradford - thank god she's gone. way to make every good parent paranoid Those that abuse kids will do it anyway and either get away with or not, regardless of that bill being in.

And I'm happy to say that I smack my son - it's not the only form of discipline and very rarely used, but when he tries to run out onto the road or stick his fingers need the fire door when I'm putting wood in (and yes we have safety gates) a smack is more appropriate than time out. Thanks to the nanny state we live in though, I'm too scared to do that in public so if my kid ends up squashed I might pay dear old Sue a visit.

Oh and I have a cousin that has been inside for all sorts of things (thank god we have different last names so I can pretend I don't know her ), her kids wanted to be with her when she got out each time but she couldn't even stay straight enough for CYFS to let them back. I think people deserve second chances, but it's not a rite of passage, it's something that needs to be earnt.

Edited by emz

[/QUOTE]

Also with the idea of it being a punishment for the child do you not think that in some cases children see growing up away from their mothers a punishment?

Im also wondering how you make someone a Better person?

And mothers that have violence or sexual convictions against children are automatcially ruled out.

[/QUOTE]

 

If a mother has made a decision (stupidly or not) that has landed her in prison, then NO its not a punshiment for her child to grow up away from her. Its a punishment for the mother, and although it may seem like a punishment at the time for the child, I believe that in the long run it will be better off. if you are going to conduct yourself in a criminal manner then your kids prob arent your main focus anyway.

A better person? Better than someone who makes a choice to leave their child, Better than someone who makes the choice that lands them in jail, Better than someone whose priorities werent their children, Better than someone who chooses to associate / hang around with violent, criminal people....

I am sorry - I am sure that you are a really nice person, but it doesnt matter how you "spin" this - I dont think its right, and I dont think its fair on the children.

Being a parent is a privilege, not a right. And women in jail give up that right (for the duration of their time in prison) to be an active parent IMO.

Edited by SimSam

becky wrote: What about women such as Gay Oakes whom was abused and mentally tortured so badly by her defacto partner that she drugged him with pills to put him to sleep and accidentally killed him. Do they choose to hang around with criminal types?

I expect she is the exception when it comes to women in prison.
While this is one example that's been highlighted.

Women end up in prison cause they did something criminal and that's where they should be.

I don't know much about the babies in prisons, and yes BF is best, but surely there is a better solution than sending the babies to prison with them.

lilfatty wrote: *sigh* Gay Oakes chose to stay .. Im sick of these women in abusive relationships saying "I couldnt leave" of course you could bloody leave, they CHOSE not too! How many children were killed by the male in their lives because their mothers "couldnt" leave. Its the biggest cop out I have ever heard. No way would I stay where my children were in danger! (oh and Gay Oakes decided to drug someone, seems like a premeditated action to me)

It is VERY easy to comment when you are not in the situation yourself It is all good and well saying 'you have the choice to leave' but things aren't always that black & white. There are many reasons why women in abusive relationships stay.. and I wouldn't be so quick to say that any of those reasons are 'cop-outs'. Abuse isn't just physical, it can also be mental & emotional.

When you have a child you have a responsibilty to protect that child, I too get really upset at women who choose to stay, because thats what it is a CHOICE. Same as smoking P, getting pissed and beating your child - its all a CHOICE. We have free will as human beings, and we are lucky enough to live in a society where women have lots of choices and sources of help.

I agree its very easy to comment on this as an "outsider" - and I am sure that there are lots of people who have experienced abuse in some form that would agree, their lives improved when they made the choice to leave or change their circumstances. '

I dont think the Gay Oakes scenario applies here - to my knowledge she wasnt caring for a young baby / toddler in prison?

ETA - like LilFatty pointed out - you dont know what experiences people have had in their lives, please dont presume that they are coming to a subject without an informed opinion.

Edited by SimSam

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I was in agreement of the anti-smacking bill in that it removed a clause that some parents (and not all parents by any means) had used to get away with abuse. i.e the mum who beat her son with a horse whip and then got off using the clause, those sorts of parents. I also think that the whole of nz got it's knickers in a knot about something that wasn't even real, for a start it wasn't an anti-smacking bill and no one was ever gonna go to prison for smacking a childs hand away from a hot stove or grabbing a child as they ran towards a road. I personally though am shocked and appalled that in this day and age so many people want to smack their children and think they have the right to do so. It is illegal to smack another adult, no matter how minor the smack, no matter whether it leaves a mark or not and no matter the circumstances, I'm also pretty sure it is illegal to smack your dog or cat as well so why on earth should it be ok to smack a child?
And really what does it teach your child, smacking is ok. When it comes to parenting we have to remember that monkey see monkey do.

As for this whole babies in prison debacle, OMG, what on earth is that about. I can understand maybe having a newborn with the mum for a while but 2 years WTF?!?!?!?! Yes I think that some mums in prison may turn their lives around once they have a child to think about but surely having good visitation would be a better solution than having a child in jail for 2 years regardless of whether they are in a self contained unit or whatever. And that is another point, doesn't sound like much of a sentence for the woman if she is in a cushy self contained unit, 3 meals a day, no bills, no job and her kid there. Shesh, perhaps I should go commit some crimes and get some of that sweet deal.



Edited by cuppatea

I really don't want to get into the debate about smacking vs not smacking but just wanted to clear up a bit of a misconception as to what is and isn't allowed under the current law.
eg

emz wrote: when he tries to run out onto the road or stick his fingers need the fire door when I'm putting wood in (and yes we have safety gates) a smack is more appropriate than time out

(sorry emz don't mean to pick on you but that was the most accessible example!)

The above is perfectly legal. The law says:

Crimes Act wrote: Section 59 Parental control (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 (c) 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 that means, if your kid is in imminent danger, or causing danger to another kid, or even if they're simply throwing the king of all tantys at the supermarket, you're allowed to use force. (The last one is eg you're allowed to forcibly pin them down to change their nappy.) What is illegal under the law is force for the purposes of correction only - eg once the danger has passed, saying "now little Johnny, don't run out in front of cars or you'll get a smack" *smack*.

Bobbie wrote: I wish the money spent on the referendum had been better spent on an education campaign to combat the slack and sensationalist journalistic coverage that the repeal got.

There are so many better things I wish that money was spent on - your suggestion certainly springs to mind!