Plan to 'name and shame' domestic violence perpetrators (1 Viewer)

[highpingbastard]

http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,,21248760-5011900,00.html

Morris Iemma announced that, if he is re-elected, his government will introduce reform to combat rising domestic violence.

Among his plans include the 'naming and shaming' of people convicted of domestic violence. There new criminal laws will create a separate offence for domestic violence, and new police will be introduced to combat the problem. Iemma also announced an increase in funding for counseling, support and legal services for domestic violence victims.

What does everyone think?
Any victims (men or women) have anything to say about this?
Does Iemma's proposed reforms change the way you will vote on the 24th March?

My partner and I are covering the election, focusing on the perspective of average people. We are UTS students working in collaboration with the Sydney Morning Herald Online for a project called 'Grassroots'. The point of grassroots is to focus on the ordinary people, as opposed to using the traditional MP, PR person-type quotes. The link to Grassroots is: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw-election-2007/grassroots/index.html

(This section has been added on request by someone here, to make sure people can check our credentials.)

My name is Kit Yap.
My partner's name is Thao Tran.

We are both on the list of Grassroots reporters. We also request contact via PM because I think a lot of people here would like to remain anonymous to the general Boredofstudies forum. Hence, if any of you have something you'd like to say (and let me assure you that you ALL have something worthy of saying), then please contact me via PM with your full name, age and occupation. If you think that DV is an important issue in your electorate, then feel free to provide me that too.

 

[ur_inner_child]

They say 1 in 3 women in Australia will have experienced domestic violence at some stage of their lives. It's a very alarming statistic, and yes, it's an issue that needs addressing.

I am not sure on Iemma's policy, considering that it is the women who need to be educated on their rights. Naming and shaming wouldn't do very much at all. It is so hard to go against someone who you love but causes so much pain. It's not that the abusers aren't being punished, it is that victims are not brave enough to name them.

For example, a child that suffered domestic violence might free themselves from abuse (run away, move out etc), but will not ever report the incident.

No matter how painful the experience, you still love them.

 

[poloktim]

http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,,21248760-5011900,00.html

Morris Iemma announced that, if he is re-elected, his government will introduce reform to combat rising domestic violence.

Among his plans include the 'naming and shaming' of people convicted of domestic violence. There new criminal laws will create a separate offence for domestic violence, and new police will be introduced to combat the problem. Iemma also announced an increase in funding for counseling, support and legal services for domestic violence victims.

What does everyone think?
Any victims (men or women) have anything to say about this?
Does Iemma's proposed reforms change the way you will vote on the 24th March?

My partner and I are covering the election, focusing on the perspective of average people. We are UTS students working in collaboration with the Sydney Morning Herald Online for a project called 'Grassroots'. If there is anything detailed and specific you would like to say, please PM me with your full name, age, electorate and occupation and what you would like to say.

I think this is definitely an interesting issue that I'm sure a lot of you people have something to say about.

Naming and shaming doesn't seem like a good idea.

The reason I'm iffy about naming and shaming is because it then brings the partner of the abuser into the spotlight. From then on s/he will be known to the public as the victim of domestic abuse. By naming and shaming offenders, we'd unwittingly name and shame their victims. It could scare some victims off reporting the abuse because they don't want the public to know.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Ah, I must agree with the above.

 

[Tulipa]

Oh absolutely. I personally think it's a ridiculous idea to name and shame.

It in no way will combat domestic violence, in fact it will probably make the victims feel even more helpless.

The new laws might be a good idea and more money for counselling is absolutely needed but I'm guessing that the whole "naming and shaming" game is his ploy for votes and to be honest it just makes him sound stupid.

 

[Gilbert1]

I believe that naming and shaming is a bad idea because our system is based on the concept that people can change with the correct punishment. If they have already been convicted under the laws put forward why harrass them more. I'm not saying that they should go commit more domestic scenes but the problem is the sentencing it seems to me.

 

[withoutaface]

It's just an attempt by Iemma to look tough on crime after the failure that was the Cronulla riots.

 

[Triangulum]

It's just an attempt by Iemma to look tough on crime after the failure that was the Cronulla riots.

It's an attempt by Iemma to look tough on crime in the context of a state election campaign. Law and order auction, etc.

One of the things that depresses me most about state politics is that significant pieces of our legal system - right of defendants to cross-examine their accusers, requirement for jury verdicts to be unanimous, double jeopardy, doli incapax, right of judges to sentence convicted criminals independently, etc. - are dismissed without a second thought because we're too 'soft on criminals'. This policy is actually fairly mild by comparison.

 

[banco55]

It's an attempt by Iemma to look tough on crime in the context of a state election campaign. Law and order auction, etc.

One of the things that depresses me most about state politics is that significant pieces of our legal system - right of defendants to cross-examine their accusers, requirement for jury verdicts to be unanimous, double jeopardy, doli incapax, right of judges to sentence convicted criminals independently, etc. - are dismissed without a second thought because we're too 'soft on criminals'. This policy is actually fairly mild by comparison.

I think sometimes the legal establishment goes ballistic at any perceived attack on these sacred cows regardless of how much thought is behind the criticism. I think you can make a good argument for 11 to 1 jury verdicts for example and more prescriptive laws with regards to sentencing aren't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Optophobia]

Naming and Shaming

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Why must they both have such pathetic law and order policies? Honestly... the public doesn't even want this shit.

 

[Serius]

sounds like its a step towards megans law.... that will be a very sad day indeed.

 

[Optophobia]

I'll take your naming and shaming of domestic violence offenders plan, AND i'll RAISE you a "lower the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years old" plan!
GO PETER DEBNAM! I HOPE HE WINS THE LAW AND ORDER AUCTION. HE'S DEFINITELY THE ONE TO PROTECT ME FROM THESE BIG BAD EVER-PRESENT CRIMINALS!!!
What's some more ways that we can torture criminals? What's some more ways that we can make them scape goats? We, the people who live on the moral high ground and who have never done anything wrong in our lives just simply aren't feeling important and powerful enough. We need to be protected from these wife bashing 11 year olds. Politicians just aren't doing enough!

These 13 year old shop lifters need to spend life in prison, damnit. I know who i'm voting for..



Edit: highpingbastard, the links in your OP don't work.

 

[banco55]

sounds like its a step towards megans law.... that will be a very sad day indeed.

What's wrong with megans law or am I missing the sarcasm?

 

[Triangulum]

I think sometimes the legal establishment goes ballistic at any perceived attack on these sacred cows regardless of how much thought is behind the criticism. I think you can make a good argument for 11 to 1 jury verdicts for example and more prescriptive laws with regards to sentencing aren't necessarily a bad thing.

More prescriptive laws with regard to sentencing, though, tend to be made by politicians who are more interested in appearing tough on crime than in allowing sentencing to look at subtleties. A judge who is familiar with facts of the specific case is better qualified to decide a sentence than a politician enacting blanket regulations that cover all people who commit a certain crime, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Serius]

what isnt wrong with megans law? The whole idea is a joke really. Because those lists are publicly available anyone can access them and make life hell for someone who has allready been punished. [not to mention the homocides of 'sexual offenders'] The requirement for a sexual offender is really low, a 18yr old and 17year old having sex, the guy would now be a 'sex offender'.
Oh and the obvious one: those who actually comply with megans law, those who keep their info up to date and completely abide by it are those that are most punished, most ridiculed by the public, harassed by psycho christian people and job prospects ruined.

In alot of cases if i was an american i would prefer to be an ex-con murderer than an ex-con 'sex offender'.

Thats kind of outside of the scope of this thread though. Naming and shaming is a pathetic idea, keep punishments in the realm of the courts kthxbi.

 

[highpingbastard]

Interesting replies.

Does anyone here think that the domestic violence reform prejudices men as opposed to women?

Does anyone think that the issue is non-political and is irrelevant to the state election?

Does anyone have any suggestions on what would be best to combat domestic violence?

 

[Josie]

Most issues discussed in elections are irrelevent to politics and politicians.

Any of the law reforms announced in the last week are things that politicians shouldn't be touching with a 10-foot pole.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

what isnt wrong with megans law? The whole idea is a joke really. Because those lists are publicly available anyone can access them and make life hell for someone who has allready been punished. [not to mention the homocides of 'sexual offenders'] The requirement for a sexual offender is really low, a 18yr old and 17year old having sex, the guy would now be a 'sex offender'.
....
Oh and the obvious one: those who actually comply with megans law, those who keep their info up to date and completely abide by it are those that are most punished, most ridiculed by the public, harassed by psycho christian people and job prospects ruined.

So you would be fine with having a convicted child molester living in your street without your knowledge?
You would be fine with having a murderer living in your street?
In some cases, yes, naming and shaming offenders would not be the way to go but I think in the case of child molesters, murderers (kids like those two that killed the toddler...) they should be named. They should be known.

And if they get hassled by people, if their job prospects are ruined...so what?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

And if they get hassled by people, if their job prospects are ruined...so what?

Well the idea is that once you've been to gaol you've paid your debt to society for the terrible crime you have done. Putting these people out there, shaming them for the rest of their lives, is akin (imo) to giving a kind of mandatory life sentence to all who perpertrate such crimes...