Wednesday, May 20, 2009

When is a punch not a punch?

He may look like Jesus, but he certainly doesn't act like him. Yesterday, one James Mason was found guilty in the Christchurch District Court of assault, for punching his four-year-old child in the face. Yet the headline of the story, leading today's Herald front page, is "'Ear-flick' father guilty of assault". Curious, no?

It's hardly the first time that this case has been in the news - for weeks we have heard the gnashing and wailing of teeth as a 'good parent' has been arrested for flicking his kid on the ear. How could it be that a parent is punished for flicking his kid on the ear? 'We told you so,' said the pro-smacking lobby - those upstanding arbiters of 'family values' such as hitting one's children - 'sooner or later parents will get in trouble for lovingly disciplining their children.' Today's article, a break from the Bain trial for Jarrod Booker, suggests that this case was 'seen as a test of the anti-smacking laws'. (How many anti-smacking laws are there?)

So let me repeat: James Louis Mason, 50, was convicted of assault for punching his child in the face.

Mason told One News outside the court he was baffled by the verdict.

"I'm not quite sure which [charge] I was convicted on ... I'd be interested to find that out. I'm just a bit dumbfounded at the moment."

Don't worry, Mr Mason; if you weren't listening when the jury read out the verdicts, I'm sure one of the court officers will fill you in. Just a few days ago, the Herald implied that charges were brought in this particular case because Mason had made a fuss to police when he was warned over flicking his child's ear. I know that 'controversial law convicts parent' is a story that will sell papers, but I would have thought 'man punches child' would have been as well.

As if the headline had not been clear enough about what the Herald is taking from (or making of) this case, the end of the article makes no pretense of actually being about the case at hand:
Family First director Bob McCoskrie said last night that the conviction was appropriate if it was for punching a child.
Well that's big of you. Unfortunately, this is one of those depressing sentences where you can sense the 'but' coming before you read it:

But there was a concern that Mason may have been found guilty for only the ear-pull, as the actions of punching, and pulling the ear, were wrapped up in the same police charge.

"If that's the case, then it's a decision that does concern us. We would like that clarified to understand how the law is being interpreted by the police and the courts."

"There was a concern"? You mean from a rent-a-quote who doesn't belong in this story any more than an astrologer arguing that Mason was convicted because the moon is in the seventh house? In case the reader hasn't got the idea yet, Booker/NZPA just give up on talking about the case and keep talking about section 59 for the rest of the article.

The anti-smacking legislation was passed by Parliament in May 2007, removing from the Crimes Acts the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically punish children.

Family First is campaigning for the repeal of the law and in March issued survey findings showing many parents were still confused about the law change.

As the law stands a light smack would not always be illegal. But 55 per cent of the 1000 people surveyed thought smacking was always illegal, 31 per cent thought it was not, and 14 per cent did not know.

In other words, 69 per cent of people did not know. I wonder why not.


EDIT: I honestly don't know where people have got this idea that the section 59 change was designed or intended to end child abuse. Who ever said that? But it seems to be the implication of today's Herald poll, "Has the anti-smacking legislation reduced assaults on children?". As of writing, 88% of criminologi - I'm sorry, people who vote in Herald online polls think it hasn't. Presumably they know this because they're still assaulting their children.

18 comments:

  1. I completely agree with you about that stupid headline - I had noticed it this morning online. The related article online 'Guilty Verdict in Anti-Smacking Case' used a picture of an anti-anti smacking sign -'A smack is not abuse' - not quite sure what it had to do with a punch to the face.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also agree about the stupid headline, and also the assertion that this was a “test of the anti-smacking legislation”. In fact I think that the reporting on this case was woeful from all sides.

    James, you seem to be adamant that the punch took place, but the Herald confusingly states that no one actually witnessed the punch (or ear flick) and that witnesses had only testified to the verbal abuse. The ear flick was admitted by the defendant, but not the punch, hence the guys “confusion” as both acts were taken as one accusation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm only 'adamant' in so far as I accept the material verdict in most court cases where I'm not actually in court to hear about it.

    The emphasis of the article isn't about whether the punch happened or not. To me, it seems to be ignoring that and going for the section 59 angle rather, erm, adamantly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interestingly, I understood that a smack has always been illegal, though, one of the girls in my mothers school said recently "They've outlawed smacking, but it hasn't made a difference because they haven't outlawed beating miss"

    In short, the anti smacking bill was a waste of time, not because it criminalises good parents, but because the vast majority of offenders are never caught.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bit "your views"y I know and I do despise the whole anti section 59 brigade, but I just wanted to get that off my chest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Russel Brown over at hard news reports Mason said to the police: "I hit the big one in the face and that is what I do and that lady [the witness] can mind her own business." So he admitted to punching the boy in the face.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've been confused about the punching too. Is the proof just on him admitting it? I thought the off duty female cop on the scene also SAW it, but not the incident that caused him to loose it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The whole reporting of this story has been a bloody shambles. I have heard a different version of what happened from numerous news outlets, and indeed the same news outlets report a different version each day.
    I think we can all draw the conclusion that this has been lazily reported by shitty journalists eager to give an excuse to flag wavers to stand outside parliament and give them a real story.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now I'm confused, was he pulling or flicking the ear? Surely we need some clarity on this one!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The headline seems to have changed to
    "'Ear-flick' father guilty of assault for punching son"
    Was this a paper vs web change?

    ReplyDelete
  11. i knew that you would be on your lofty horse of superiority on this one.

    the charge the defendant was found guilty related to the pulling of an ear and a punch to the face. his contention in court was that he was merely 'flicking' his child's ear. the jury did not accept this, and found that there was sufficient reason to believe there was a strike to the face.

    i see absolutely no problem with the headline as presented in the print edition. if read with the subhead, it explicitly states that the man who claimed an 'ear flick' was found guilty of striking the child. it does not suggest that the newspaper believed its own version of events.

    the irony i find with this blog is that it deals in such subjective truths and presumptive preposition that it is guilty of the very thing it claims of its target. It wants - no expects - the worst of the newspaper in question.

    And also, it has not answer when anyone asks 'so how would YOU have done it better?'

    Shall we start with the headline? How would YOU have improved it, taking into account the space restrictions of the slot?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "i see absolutely no problem with the headline as presented in the print edition. if read with the subhead, it explicitly states that the man who claimed an 'ear flick' was found guilty of striking the child."

    In which case, anyone who pleads not guilty and goes on to be convicted would be reported as "'I didn't do it, guv, honest' man convicted of murder".

    "Shall we start with the headline? How would YOU have improved it, taking into account the space restrictions of the slot?"

    Um, how about "'Face-punch' father guilty of assault".

    ReplyDelete
  13. One thing I might say is that the context of previous Herald articles, where we were told that it was a test-case for the 'anti-smacking law' (it wasn't), is quite important. The fact that half the article was still about s59 was pretty nauseating.

    As for the headline - in my newspaper a common assault charge wouldn't have been on the front page. Which is my whole point, really - if it weren't for the bullshit fuss about s59, this is just a story about a bad parent punching a kid.

    'Father guilty of assault' works for me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "the charge the defendant was found guilty related to the pulling of an ear and a punch to the face. his contention in court was that he was merely 'flicking' his child's ear. the jury did not accept this, and found that there was sufficient reason to believe there was a strike to the face."

    I think the fact that 'Anonymous' has delivered a more concise and relevant summary of the proceedings using one paragraph than the Herald did with an entire artice shows exactly why some of us might have a problem with this story.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Check mate anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm just gonna go ahead and assume anonymous isn't arguing with himself... but maybe you could use pseudonyms (or real names) in the future to help...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Okay, I'm anon 1.

    ReplyDelete