No New Zealand parent was prosecuted for a minor smack after the repeal.
Evidence
The post-repeal monitoring also produced a specific finding that advocates had predicted but opponents had denied was possible: in the three years following the legislation, no parent was prosecuted for a minor smack. The “smacking ban” characterization — the claim that ordinary parents who gave their children a light tap would be criminalized — was not confirmed by the subsequent legal record. Police exercised discretion. Prosecutions under the substituted section 59 were, in the years immediately following repeal, limited to cases involving more serious physical harm than a light tap. — , The Rod and the Child, 10078
Categorization
- XREF: This falsification became the key counter-argument used in England, Canada, and Australia against the ‘smacking ban will criminalize parents’ objection. — connects to: New Zealand’s smacking law changed norms despite discretion-led non-prosecution — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 7398
Related
- New Zealand’s smacking law changed norms despite discretion-led non-prosecution (similarity 0.89)
- New Zealand’s smacking acceptance fell from 50% to 30% within three years of repeal. (similarity 0.86)
- New Zealand’s post-repeal data shows the strongest prohibition effects in Anglosphere law (similarity 0.83)
- Parental smacking prevalence halved within twelve years of New Zealand’s 2007 prohibition (similarity 0.83)