Anti-Smacking Social Policy
Social Policy – On Anti-Smacking Bill:
In this essay, I am going to discuss, identify and outline my selected social policy; I will also explain why I selected this social policy and why it is a social policy; I will Identify and describe the interest groups who helped define this problem and have set the agenda; the objectives of this social policy will be outlined and explained, arguments of the interest groups will be linked to their political ideology or ideologies.
I have chosen the “Anti-smacking Bill” because I believe that physical punishment can be ineffective and can have harmful long-term effects on children, especially if it’s severe. It is appears clear to me that there are many other ways of disciplining children that are …show more content…
The anti-smacking law is ideologically flawed and a complete and utter waste of time. (McCroskie, 2009)
According to ‘Family First – Mr. McCroskie, “the horror of child abuse deaths has continued since the law change”. Mr McCroskie added that Sue Bradford’s comment was quite correct when she said ‘The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. The bill was never intended to solve that problem.’ (McCroskie, 2009)
"You know a law is completely ineffectual when the proponents applaud it because of its lack of impact and the problem and rate of child abuse remains," says Mr McCoskrie. (McCroskie, 2009)
There are reports that families are calling on the National government to amend the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime, and good parents are not victims of a law which should be targeted more effectively at child abusers. The New Zealand people are crying out for laws that actually target abusers and protect abused. (McCroskie, …show more content…
Adults caring for children can still use ‘force’ (by methods of holding or restraining) to keep children safe – for example adults can stop a child from running out onto the street, touching a hot stove, hurting themselves or other children and they can carry a protesting child out of a supermarket. (Robinson, 2009)
The Anti-smacking Bill has brought up controversy from the time the bill was passed to the present. According to the latest (17 June 2013) “Media Release”. The Family First said that since the anti-smacking law was passed in a supposed effort to lower our child abuse rates, it has been confirmed as a spectacular failure based on flawed ideology. (Independent news media, 2013)
The Family First NZ are also refuting and contesting a statement that was made by Prime Minister John Key that the increased numbers of child abuse simply reflect an increase in reporting. (McCroskie,
In this essay, I am going to discuss, identify and outline my selected social policy; I will also explain why I selected this social policy and why it is a social policy; I will Identify and describe the interest groups who helped define this problem and have set the agenda; the objectives of this social policy will be outlined and explained, arguments of the interest groups will be linked to their political ideology or ideologies.
I have chosen the “Anti-smacking Bill” because I believe that physical punishment can be ineffective and can have harmful long-term effects on children, especially if it’s severe. It is appears clear to me that there are many other ways of disciplining children that are …show more content…
The anti-smacking law is ideologically flawed and a complete and utter waste of time. (McCroskie, 2009)
According to ‘Family First – Mr. McCroskie, “the horror of child abuse deaths has continued since the law change”. Mr McCroskie added that Sue Bradford’s comment was quite correct when she said ‘The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. The bill was never intended to solve that problem.’ (McCroskie, 2009)
"You know a law is completely ineffectual when the proponents applaud it because of its lack of impact and the problem and rate of child abuse remains," says Mr McCoskrie. (McCroskie, 2009)
There are reports that families are calling on the National government to amend the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime, and good parents are not victims of a law which should be targeted more effectively at child abusers. The New Zealand people are crying out for laws that actually target abusers and protect abused. (McCroskie, …show more content…
Adults caring for children can still use ‘force’ (by methods of holding or restraining) to keep children safe – for example adults can stop a child from running out onto the street, touching a hot stove, hurting themselves or other children and they can carry a protesting child out of a supermarket. (Robinson, 2009)
The Anti-smacking Bill has brought up controversy from the time the bill was passed to the present. According to the latest (17 June 2013) “Media Release”. The Family First said that since the anti-smacking law was passed in a supposed effort to lower our child abuse rates, it has been confirmed as a spectacular failure based on flawed ideology. (Independent news media, 2013)
The Family First NZ are also refuting and contesting a statement that was made by Prime Minister John Key that the increased numbers of child abuse simply reflect an increase in reporting. (McCroskie,