Consultation on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill
|
Tystiolaeth i’r Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg ar gyfer craffu Cyfnod 1 Bil Plant (Diddymu Amddiffyniad Cosb Resymol) (Cymru) |
Evidence submitted to the Children, Young People and Education Committee for Stage 1 scrutiny of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill |
|
CADRP-409 |
CADRP-409 |
About you
Individual
— No
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
1). UNACCEPTABLE INTRUSION INTO FAMILY LIFE. Discipline of children has always been the responsibility of parents, for the child's sake. The parents know the child better than anyone else, and are therefore best placed to bring the child up in the way it should go, knowing the best guidance/discipline for their particular child.
2). SUCH INTRUSION WILL CRUCIFY THE FAMILY, & THE CHILD. When prosecuting we never called a child to give evidence in a criminal court, unless the circumstances were exceptional. When the parent is convicted and punished, does the family just go home & live happily ever after? I think not. Even if the parent pleads guilty, the child's own sense of guilt, "that it was their fault" (as in sexual abuse in the home), will pursue the child into later life, destroying their sense of worth, and resulting in mental health issues....(I've been involved in a counselling organisation for over 20 years). Even if no prosecution, police and social services investigation can, alone, destroy the family trust of each other.
3). NOT THE WAY TO EDUCATE. The criminal law should not be used to "educate" parents on one small aspect of parenting. The significant cost of police and social services investigation & prosecution, with the resultant fallout in family relationships, could be much more profitably spent on educating people on parenting before they become parents.
4). MASSIVE, UNACCEPTABLE, SHIFT IN CRIMINAL LAW. Mens rea and actus reus equals a crime, since Roman Times. i.e. an assualt to be a criminal assualt has to involve a touching with a hostile intention.
A slap of a child about to stick his fingers in an electrical socket for the 10th time, by a loving parent, is entirely for the good of the child. It's the opposite of harming. The Bill seeks to create a criminal offence of strict liability. We cannot tolerate that in a civilised society. see commentary on s.1 Children & Young Persons Act 1933.
5). CHASTISEMENT IS NOT PUNISHMENT. Chastisement is disapprobation/correction of conduct, whereas punishment inflicts an unpleasant experience commensurate with the heinousness of the "crime." i.e. chastisement benefits the person; punishment fits the crime. There has always been the defence of moderate & reasonable chastisement; it needs to remain for the benefit of the child.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
No. The Bill seeks to protect children from harm. An unreasonable smack is already a crime.
Shouting at a child, causing shock and fear, is harmful. Similarly, sending a child out of the family circle to its bedroom, for example, can create feelings of rejection, that can lead to mental health issues.
There is need for education of all people in parenting.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
1). Having studied and practiced Law for nigh on 60 years, I cannot, for the life of me, see how we can justify making criminal, reasonable smacking, in a loving family home, done for the sole benefit of the child. In other words saying it is an offence of strict liability, and the reason for the smack is irrelevant.
2). What punishment are we going to give? Even a guilty plea is going to take ages, because the Court will need to know the context in which it took place. The whole Parent/Child relationship may have to be gone into. Was the Child smacked as he attempted to put his hand in the fire for the 100th time; what were the previous warnings given that failed; had all means of abating his fascination with fire been exhausted; or was this the first time?
Furthermore, what effect will the punishment have on the other siblings? Furthermore, what effect will a criminal conviction on the parent's chances of securing essential employment, and how will that impact on family life.
We need to support family life, not destroy it.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
-
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
The Bill will do irreparable harm to the child, it seeks to protect from harm. see above re destroying the family and the child.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Cost will be enormous, even if a guilty plea, (see above) and the cost of trying to put the family back together again afterwards, even more costly.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
How can the politicians consider this legislation, when the August 2018 consultation revealed 76% opposition in Wales. What has happened to democracy? Similarly, the TalkParenting Survey, found only 30% in favour of the proposed legislation!
Why are we considering all this cost of prosecution, and harm to family life, when the Wales Centre for Public Policy concluded that there is no definitive evidence that smacking causes harm to children?
In 1979 Sweden banned smacking. Since then child- on- child violence increased by 1791% between 1984 and 2010. Hence the argument that smacking teaches children that violence is acceptable, is not true.