Quote Originally Posted by LokentheWolf View Post
But see, punishing people for "smacking" their children, and then real abuse are two different things that should be defined. For example, smacking a child on the rear could be placed under and punish parents who dont smack children unfairly and across the cheek with the back of their hand. People like my aunt should be punished for what they do. But people like my father who do it as a corrective messure shouldnt.
Although I personally don't support smacking in it's various forms, I can see the argument for it. However, my concern is that in a courtroom, when a child abuser is in front of a jury, a crafty lawyer could just pull out some nice oratory to show that no, this person did not abuse their children, they just smacked them to teach them a lesson. The distinction between abuse and physical punishment is hard to define; in order to prevent child abusers from getting away from their crimes, smacking needs to be criminalised. Using your own example, under a legal system where smacking is legal, it is likely that both your aunt and your father would not be convicted (I base this on the fact (assumption?) that your aunt's abuse was not as bad as some of the cases where a jury said 'reasonable force had been used'). If smacking had been criminalised, realistically, though what your dad would've technically committed a crime, he would unlikely have been charged. The police don't live in your home, and these beatings don't sound severe to the point of leaving visible traces (bruises, etc.). Though smacking is illegal in NZ at current, I believe only one person has actually been charged with it, though I suppose it still goes on a lot more regularly than that. What your aunt did, however, would've been much more likely to be labeled as assault, and a conviction ensue.

People like my aunt should be punished for what they do. But people like my father who do it as a corrective messure shouldnt.
Looks like you would've got your wish, then?