Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
MummyFreckle
Senior Member
Joined: 08 February 2007
Location: Auckland
Points: 4120
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 1:25pm |
becky wrote:
Totally agree with you Essjay re section 59.
The breastfeeding mums in Jail is not about the fact that they produce milk, its about attachment having that opportunity to bond with their child. Its also about breaking the 'Cycle' as most of these mothers in jail probably had a parent in jail may also have been bounced from foster home to foster home. I have seen parents do horrific things to their children and make selfish decisions but these children always want to be with their real parents. The punishment for their crime is being removed from the community and put in a place where they have no personal decisions if a baby goes to live with their mother while she is incarcerated and the mother becomes a better person and wants to fight for her child then I think its a good thing. |
I am not going to get into the debate about whether this is right or wrong, but I do have to disagree with you on some of the points that you have made.
I dont believe that exposing children to the prison system helps to break the cycle, in fact in does the opposite - it normalises it - especially during those incredibly important first few years when they are learning so much. Like it or not - women who are in jail are there for a reason, and prob have a multitude of personal issues (including anger) and I wouldnt have thought that exposing young children to that is a good thing, and children will be exposed to other women as well as their mother.
I also dont beleive that children always want to be with their parents. No matter how strong the bond between a parent and a child, if the child is being abused (emotionally or physically) and IF the child has another family member that cares for them where this doesnt occur - the child will often want to stay with them. I think its a gross generalisation to presume that children arent smart enough to want to be somewhere safe.
These women made a choice - and for that they are paying the penatly - the child DID NOT make a choice, they should not be penalised. I strongly believe that we should be helping women in jail to become better people and make better decisions, but help them decide and equip them to be better parents when they get out of prison.
Sorry if I sound opinionated on this subject, but I strongly believe that children should not be punished for their parents actions. Children are shaped by the world and the people around them - we have a duty to try to make sure that the world that they are exposed to is free of violence and anger.
|
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
pepsi
Senior Member
Joined: 01 January 1900
Points: 2699
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 3:14pm |
*LIKE* Simsam
|
|
MyLilSquishy
Senior Member
Joined: 25 July 2009
Location: Dunedin
Points: 5274
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 3:16pm |
i didnt know about the other 2 bills she has passed, have only heard about the anti-smacking bill. i think its good that she managed to get the discipline "excuse" for chilod abuse off the table.
although i don't feel the way its been worded or how normal parents are treated is right. if your kid runs out on the road in front of cars, pulling them aside and saying "no johnny we dont do that" will (more often than not) fall on deaf ears. give em a quick swat, they associate running out on the road with mummy/daddy giving em a tap. there is a BIG difference between beating your child within 3 inches of their life, and giving em a smack when they climb on the oven.
i dont think that smacking should be an only form of discipline, should only be used in extreme cases, where they put their lives directly in danger, but it should not be completely excluded. if some parents want to take a fully no-hands approach. good on em!
im not saying anything against how people raise their children, but i was spanked as a kid, all me and my 2 brothers were. and we all turned out fine. my brother had his own business at 18 and is looking at real estate... (only 19 next month) and i thnk is disgusting how people are criminalising parents for a quick bum tap (normally over a nappy) that 99% of the time, doesnt actually hurt, they cry/respond to the shock...
like i said, im glad to see that child abusers dont have an "out" but when your kid is destroying half a supermarket and isnt listening to "stop it" so you give em a tap (btw im not talking about a hardcore whack or anything, i literally mean a hard tap) i dont think its right that parents can get arrested for it because someone else in the supermarket saw it out of the corner of their eye.
|
|
sweetpea
Senior Member
Joined: 14 July 2008
Location: Invercargill
Points: 1155
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 3:30pm |
I'm please shes gone never liked her shes off to live on her pension now.
|
|
|
becky
Senior Member
Joined: 03 December 2007
Location: Christchurch
Points: 628
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 3:59pm |
[/QUOTE] SimSam
I also dont beleive that children always want to be with their parents. No matter how strong the bond between a parent and a child, if the child is being abused (emotionally or physically) and IF the child has another family member that cares for them where this doesnt occur - the child will often want to stay with them. I think its a gross generalisation to presume that children arent smart enough to want to be somewhere safe. [/QUOTE]
Sorry should have said that the children I have come across have wanted to be with their parents and have a strong attachment with them despite some of the abuse or neglect they may have seen.
Also in regards to the NORMALISATION of the behaviours that they see in Jail ie Anger its more than likely that these behaviours are normalised for them already, in Jail they have access to support systems and education that in the community they may not be able to access.
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.
Edited by becky
|
|
|
emz
Senior Member
Joined: 25 November 2006
Location: Christchurch
Points: 5321
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 4:42pm |
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
|
|
GuestGuest
Senior Member
Joined: 21 April 2008
Points: 3600
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 4:49pm |
I agree with everything you just said 100% Emz
|
|
MummyFreckle
Senior Member
Joined: 08 February 2007
Location: Auckland
Points: 4120
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 5:15pm |
[/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
Senior Member
Joined: 03 December 2007
Location: Christchurch
Points: 628
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 7:39pm |
The mothers and babies are in self-contained units, rather than in the main prison.
I think its also about context people have made comments that they are stupid people that made a choice to leave their children and yes in some circumstances people do choose a life of crime and in some cases its the circumstances they were brought up in. 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?
|
|
|
caliandjack
Senior Member
Joined: 10 March 2007
Location: West Auckland
Points: 12487
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 7:55pm |
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.
|
[/url] Angel June 2012
|
|
lilfatty
Senior Member
Joined: 22 August 2007
Location: Waitakere
Points: 9799
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:07pm |
*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)
|
Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months)
I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year LFs weight blog
|
|
Mamma2N
Senior Member
Joined: 15 February 2009
Points: 908
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:21pm |
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.
|
|
lilfatty
Senior Member
Joined: 22 August 2007
Location: Waitakere
Points: 9799
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:32pm |
Let's just say you don't know me or what situations I have been in .. suffice to say I know I wouldnt stay with anyone who abused me (and it seems like a no brainer decision if you have children to protect).
IMHO you forsake your right to your children if you chose to stay in an abusive relationship no matter what your reason is for "having no choice".
|
Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months)
I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year LFs weight blog
|
|
MummyFreckle
Senior Member
Joined: 08 February 2007
Location: Auckland
Points: 4120
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:37pm |
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
|
|
|
Peanut
Senior Member
Joined: 01 January 1900
Location: Christchurch
Points: 3649
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:46pm |
SimSam wrote:
I dont think the Gay Oakes scenario applies here - to my knowledge she wasnt caring for a young baby / toddler in prison?
|
Correct - she wasn't so probably not the best example to be used.
|
|
|
cuppatea
Senior Member
Joined: 05 February 2007
Points: 7798
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:54pm |
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
|
|
|
Mamma2N
Senior Member
Joined: 15 February 2009
Points: 908
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:00pm |
I certainly wouldn't stay with someone who abused me or my child either. However, I have been fortunate enough to be brought up in a violence-free environment. Many people I know haven't been so lucky and they have continued the cycle of abuse they were subjected to as children. In many of these families violence is normalised, it is a way of life.
And to bring this back to the original topic - I am in no way sad that Sue Bradford has resigned. The reasons being other posters have already covered.
And Lilfatty, I apologise if my post offended you in any way, it wasn't my intention.
|
|
weegee
Senior Member
Joined: 28 May 2008
Location: Kaukapakapa
Points: 4611
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:10pm |
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*.
|
Mum to JJ, 4 July 2008 & Addie, 28 July 2010
|
|
Bobbie
Senior Member
Joined: 01 January 1900
Location: North Shore Auckland
Points: 6123
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:37pm |
Thanks for finding that Weegee (I couldn't be bothered digging it up myself) - that's why I don't have an issue with the law change.
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.
ETA: I still don't like SB though - but that's because as Treen said she's always been a bit too condescending etc. for my tastes.
Edited by Bobbie
|
|
|
Mamma2N
Senior Member
Joined: 15 February 2009
Points: 908
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:39pm |
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!
|
|