Friday 20 March 2009

Acting irrationally

In a counter to last year's repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, the ACT party's John Boscawen is introducing a private bill to ensure 'it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children'. Boscawen claimed that the repeal 'simply criminalised law-abiding parents and removed their freedom' (although his media release didn't give any instance of a law-abiding parent being convicted for the light smacking he advocates).

Under all the heated rhetoric the smacking debate has unleashed, pro-smackers seem to reason as follows: kids aren't fully mature or rational, you can't always reason with them, so you should be able to hit them instead to make them behave. I don't agree with this (for example, most people don't think it's OK to hit an elderly person with dementia, who also is not fully rational) but at least I can see the logic.

Yet, I seem to remember that, during the 90s, ACT went to the polls with a policy of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12. So a few years ago, ACT thought of children as calculating, rational and culpable creatures that needed to be called to account in the dock. Now, they're dumb things that need to be hit so they can learn.

Another inconsistent idea about young people appears in ACT's current law and order policy, which advocates 'more secure, more humane, cheaper prisons. Young taggers don't progress to worse crimes'. Leaving aside the contradictory comments ACT has made about prison safety, we now have a view that young people can be influenced into bad deeds if we don't keep them safe. Clearly, this implies a duty of care towards young people, including a responsibility to keep them safe from violence. Welfare dependence should be ended because 'it is wrong to impose rules that make it rational for adolescents and adults to behave in ways that destroy their future' - now we're somewhere between young people (and adult beneficiaries) as calculating abusers of the system, and hapless victims of a callous welfare regime.

Despite a recent press release release condemning the actions of two toy-gun wielding private schoolboys, much of ACT's policy isn't aimed at young people at all. It's aimed at young poor people. ACT policy wants to comfort middle-aged people on the North Shore, hiding behind their Venetian blinds for fear that young brown hooligans are roaming the streets. It's a desire to control the hordes, dressed up with inconsistent arguments that veer between the outright punitive and faux paternalism. Much as they might protest otherwise, no member of the ACT caucus would be comfortable seeing their child in the same prison van in which Liam Ashley's short life was ended. And should an ACT MP's child end up in jail, I've got a feeling that MP would be less glib about prison rape.

Sigh. It's enough to make you want to lightly smack some consistency into the ACT party.

11 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

Steadfastly ignoring the false analogies and strawmen eagerly waving and shouting for my attention from within this post, here's what it's about for Boscawen:

Most of the parents I know have, like me, smacked their kids at some point. None of them were particularly impressed at having Sue Bradford declare herself our moral superior and propose criminalising us for behaviour none of us felt remotely criminal for. That's a lot of people feeling well grumpy about something that could be relatively easily changed, ie there's potentially a shitload of political capital to be mined there, and Boscawen presumably believes he's the man to do it. He won't get any political ROI from me for it, but with such a large population of grumpy voters to work on he only needs to gain the gratitude of a small proportion of it to make a difference. I'd say he's onto a winner.

Anna said...

You're right, Psycho - there is a lot of political capital to be had, amongst people who don't really care about consistent arguments.

Boscawen will have to be careful about allying himself with Family First and their research, though.

I'm eager for you to point out the strawmen and false analogies, though. I think the issue of whether we consider young people as fully cognisant liberal individuals goes to the heart of liberalism - and as the party of classical liberalism, ACT should be aware of this. If you're a classical liberal, it's pretty strange to veer between social constructionist arguments and purely liberal ones when you explain human behaviour (although it's quite obvious why ACT do this).

The NZ writing from classical liberals over the last three decades or so has been very comfortable attributing different motives to different people, often along the lines of class - ie, we have to pay chief executives more as an incentive to perform, but beneficiaries need to be paid less as their incentive to perform.

I'm looking forward to your views...

Psycho Milt said...

OK, here you go:

1. ...his media release didn't give any instance of a law-abiding parent being convicted for the light smacking he advocates).

Irrelevant. The fact that no-one has yet been convicted of this crime doesn't alter the fact it's now a crime.

2. ...pro-smackers seem to reason as follows: kids aren't fully mature or rational, you can't always reason with them, so you should be able to hit them instead to make them behave.

Straw man. I haven't met any parents who've smacked their kids and suggested this was their reasoning. Mostly I've heard reasoning along the lines of "quick and effective punishments are best." (Disputes re the necessity of punishments per se are a separate issue.)

3. ...most people don't think it's OK to hit an elderly person with dementia, who also is not fully rational...

False analogy. No-one is tasked with turning dementia sufferers back into responsible citizens because it isn't possible. And even if it were possible, the potential methods would be unlikely to be similar to childrearing.

4. ...during the 90s, ACT went to the polls with a policy of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12. So a few years ago, ACT thought of children as calculating, rational and culpable creatures that needed to be called to account in the dock. Now, they're dumb things that need to be hit so they can learn.

Straw man. ACT's views on the responsibilities that can be expected of 12-year-olds has little relevance to the responsibilities that can be expected of 5-year-olds. In short: who the hell smacks a 12-year-old?

Right-wingers play this same straw-man in reverse: in liberal-land, 4-year-olds are held to be reasoning adults whose behaviour should be influenced solely by persuasive argument, but teenagers are considered children who can't be held responsible for their actions. Most liberals don't have any trouble recognising the unfairness of this caricature when it's presented this way round.

Anna said...

1. ...his media release didn't give any instance of a law-abiding parent being convicted for the light smacking he advocates).

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. Pro-smackers have repeatedly claimed that good parents are being criminalised. Boscawen says, 'my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction'. If none have been convicted (and none are likely to be because the Police won't prosecute) then none have been criminalised. Besides, if you don't want to be criminalised, you can always try obeying the law.

2. ...pro-smackers seem to reason as follows: kids aren't fully mature or rational, you can't always reason with them, so you should be able to hit them instead to make them behave.

Non-physical punishments manifestly do work, but that's by the by. Why would anyone who believed other punishments work opt to smack, other than sadism?

And if a parent thinks smacking is quick and effective, there's obviously some underlying assumption. 'Quick' is obvious - why is it about the punishment that makes it effective? We're back to the idea that being smacked is how children learn.

3. ...most people don't think it's OK to hit an elderly person with dementia, who also is not fully rational...

Elder carers are tasked with controlling the behaviour of elderly dementia sufferers, who can be dangerous to themselves and others, as well as being cantankerous. There have been many instances of difficult older people being abused by carers, which suggests that some people do think hitting is a good way to control the behaviour of the not fully rational. Why aren't 'quick and effective' punishments legitimate here? Perhaps because, when we see them carried out on adults, we recognise that physical discipline is a pretty fundamental attack on the dignity of a person?

4. ...during the 90s, ACT went to the polls with a policy of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12. So a few years ago, ACT thought of children as calculating, rational and culpable creatures that needed to be called to account in the dock. Now, they're dumb things that need to be hit so they can learn.

A woman and her partner in Oamaru have been repeatedly convicted of using excessive physical force to discipline the woman's son, when he was between the ages of 14 and 16. Until the 80s, kids older than 12 got caned in school - Garth McVicar and Willie Jackson, amongst others, have called for its reintroduction. Some people think hitting teenagers is fine. As far as I know, Boscawen's private bill does not specify an age at which smacking is no longer appropriate, so one would assume that the age at which a smack becomes an assault is the age at which the minor becomes an adult - ie 16. That's completely arbitrary - it has no connection to the moral or intellectual capacity of the child at all. You obviously have some distaste for the idea of hitting a 12 year old - why is hitting a four year old different? I assume that it's not because you think that 12 year olds are fully rational?

And no one actually said that four year olds are fully reasonable, least of all me. I certainly don't advocate no discipline for children - that's a straw man argument if ever I've heard one. I'm actually one of the stricter parents I know, in many regards - I expect pretty high standards of behaviour from my kids, and they seldom disappoint me. (Sorry if this disrupts your stereotyping of liberals.)

However, you can tailor the 'reason' you use to the capacities of the child. I know this because I do it every day with my own children, who are very well behaved, and who are quite capable of learning without hitting. It just takes a little more parental effort.

Psycho Milt said...

I've argued the rights and wrongs of smacking for almost 4 years years now on various blogs, and have learned that neither of us is going to change the other's opinion, so I won't bother pursuing most of this any further. I think the following things are worth further effort, though:

You obviously have some distaste for the idea of hitting a 12 year old - why is hitting a four year old different?
For one thing, it's hard to imagine a 12-year-old being particularly bothered by a slap on the bum. Boscawen and people like me are talking about that, not beating people with sticks.

And no one actually said that four year olds are fully reasonable, least of all me.

Like I said, liberals have no problem recognising the unfairness of such a caricature when it's directed their way. It's just as unfair directed the other way.

It just takes a little more parental effort.

See, it's exactly this "we are better parents" approach that convinced large numbers of parents the previous govt had to go, and is giving McCroskie such a lot of traction with people who wouldn't otherwise pay him any attention. You're not our moral superiors, you're just people with a different opinion. That's all it comes down to, at bottom - if you raise your kids to be civilised human beings, the particular mechanisms you employed to achieve that aren't greatly relevant. I can't imagine two better specimens of humanity than my parents, who took hidings when they were kids that I couldn't in a million years imagine inflicting on my own. I was probably hit as often as my kids (ie, not very), and yet they also seem to me way better people than I am. I don't think method of punishment actually counts for much in the long run. If you prefer additional work, that's fine - but most of us don't.

Anna said...

Yep, I think you've summed up the arguments of the pro-smacking lobby pretty nicely.

Psycho Milt said...

No worries - and now to sum up the other side's arguments: "If you won't voluntarily take on significant and pointless additional work for the sake of an ideal you don't share, we'll just have to make you." There's a political goldmine for ACT there, alright - thanks, Bradford and Clark.

Lucy said...

Most of the parents I know have, like me, smacked their kids at some point. None of them were particularly impressed at having Sue Bradford declare herself our moral superior and propose criminalising us for behaviour none of us felt remotely criminal for.

I'm pretty sure that *most* assault law changes have resulted in people feeling aggrieved that what they perceived as normal behaviour was now prosecutable. That doesn't mean the law change was wrong. Doesn't mean it was right, either, but as a statement in and of itself it doesn't mean much either way.

Anna said...

No, I don't think that actually summarises the arguments of anti-smackers at all. There are legal and ethical questions around why it's OK to hit some people and not others that pro-smackers haven't addressed.

You've been very candid about the arguments for smacking, though - ie that it's about the convenience of adults, and not feeling put upon by politicians. I find that a refreshing change from the bullshit pretense that smacking is in some way related to the welfare of children.

Psycho Milt said...

There are legal and ethical questions around why it's OK to hit some people and not others that pro-smackers haven't addressed.

We don't address it because it's based on a willful disregard for the relationship of parent and child. Consider: at some point you've probably detained your children against their will, forcibly restrained them and so on. Are there legal and ethical questions around why it was OK for you to do those things to some people and not others? No, not really, because your role as a parent sometimes necessarily involves doing things to your children that it would not be acceptable to do to another adult - or even to other people's children. I don't see any reason why smacking is somehow different.

Julie said...

Here's Psycho Milt's post addressing this one at No Minister, as it doesn't seem to be showing up in the trackbacks?