Unequivocal proof the smacking law is a failure

Child abuse not decreasing in NZ – study
NZ Herald 9 Dec 2011
New Zealand’s poor child abuse record has been laid bare in a major international study. It has been named as one of six countries and states where there is no clear evidence of a decrease in child maltreatment over the past two decades. The study, led by Professor Ruth Gilbert from the University College London Institute of Child Health (ICH), used three types of child maltreatment indicators; violent deaths in children, hospitalised injuries related to maltreatment, and involvement with child protection agencies. The indicators were gathered from health and child protection agencies, and compared trends in children aged under 11 across New Zealand, England, Sweden, the USA, Western Australia and Manitoba in Canada. The study found large variations in the frequency of involvement with child protection agencies, but little difference between the rates of maltreatment-related injury or violent death. Contributing author and Otago University research fellow Dr Pauline Gulliver said it was concerning there had been no apparent change in child maltreatment rates in New Zealand.

READ the report http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61087-8/fulltext


4 comments for “Unequivocal proof the smacking law is a failure

  1. Matt
    1 February 2012 at 11:09 pm

    Thanks for reporting this, Bob. It matches the data from Sweden, after the banning of smacking in that country, i.e. that violence in the age groups normally being disciplined later went on to increase. I was stunned that a whole academic study was published suggesting the opposite had happened in Sweden; when the data was tested, it was revealed that the pro-smacking author had deliberately reversed the data to match the assertion and made up the results. This means that there is clear correlation between the banning of mild physical discipline in a society and the increase in violence. It also shows the lengths that the anti-smacking lobby will go to when trying to assert their claims.

  2. Jane
    2 February 2012 at 1:02 am

    Well said Matt:)

  3. Bob
    2 February 2012 at 10:14 am

    I think you mean to say ‘the anti-smacking author had deliberately reversed the data’

  4. 20 October 2014 at 5:17 pm

    This is mу first time pay a quick visit at here and i am really imρressed to
    read all at single place.

Comments are closed.