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

[poloktim]

Interesting replies.

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

Well, I'd hope that wives who beat husbands or same-sex couples involved in domestic violence would get the same treatment as otherwise, but since those situation don't occur as much as men beating women, most people will view domestic violence as focused on that majority.

However, as I said earlier, it prejudices the victims by proxy. We need to be careful with naming and shaming. It doesn't just punish the offender, but his/her victims and families.

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

I think the issue is Iemma having a toss over law and order. Much like Debnam's policy of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to ten. They've just come up with random policies that on the surface sound like they'd fix crime in our country without thinking enough about it.
Debnam assumes children below the age of criminal responsibility can actually differentiate between right and wrong as maturely as those above the age, and adults.
Iemma assumes naming and shaming will just have the public looking down on offenders. He's completely neglected the victims, families and the vigilante sect of society.
I would hope that both policies are simply election ploys and neither would be implemented. I do think, however, courts should be tougher on offenders, and so longer sentences should be considered.

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

Lots of support for victims. If victims have access to lots and lots and lots of support, with the reassurance that their dignity will remain intact, a lot more will come out about their abusive partners. Also, mandatory prison sentences for offenders. Never name and shame offenders, but run an advertising campaign on mandatory sentences for domestic violence.

We won't solve the domestic violence problem unless we give the victims all the support possible.

 

[withoutaface]

Well, I'd hope that wives who beat husbands or same-sex couples involved in domestic violence would get the same treatment as otherwise, but since those situation don't occur as much as men beating women, most people will view domestic violence as focused on that majority.

Domestic violence in the GLBT community is a serious issue. The rates of domestic violence in same-gender relationships is roughly the same as domestic violence against heterosexual women (25%).

However, as I said earlier, it prejudices the victims by proxy. We need to be careful with naming and shaming. It doesn't just punish the offender, but his/her victims and families.

That problem could be overcome by asking for the partner's consent before "naming and shaming". My main issue, however, is that it removes any hope of rehabilitation for the offenders.

I think the issue is Iemma having a toss over law and order. Much like Debnam's policy of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to ten. They've just come up with random policies that on the surface sound like they'd fix crime in our country without thinking enough about it.
Debnam assumes children below the age of criminal responsibility can actually differentiate between right and wrong as maturely as those above the age, and adults.
Iemma assumes naming and shaming will just have the public looking down on offenders. He's completely neglected the victims, families and the vigilante sect of society.
I would hope that both policies are simply election ploys and neither would be implemented. I do think, however, courts should be tougher on offenders, and so longer sentences should be considered.

Very much agreed. It hurts to see our justice system defiled for poltical gain, with Iemma's insistence on scrapping double jeopardy, and the bilateral support for majority jury verdicts being a couple of examples off the top of my head.

Lots of support for victims. If victims have access to lots and lots and lots of support, with the reassurance that their dignity will remain intact, a lot more will come out about their abusive partners. Also, mandatory prison sentences for offenders. Never name and shame offenders, but run an advertising campaign on mandatory sentences for domestic violence.

Disagree with mandatory minimum sentencing in almost all cases because it assumes that all crimes are the same, and ignores the fact that judges are better to decide based on the facts of the case rather than what happens in the typical domestic violence case.

We won't solve the domestic violence problem unless we give the victims all the support possible.

Agreed.

 

[banco55]

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...

Mandatory life sentences for serial pedophiles, child killers etc. would be a good idea. With convicted serial pedophiles, child killers etc. the protection of the community should be the first priorty, their "rights" should be a very distant second.

 

[withoutaface]

child killers etc. the protection of the community should be the first priorty, their "rights" should be a very distant second.

You do realise that murder has just about the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal offence, right?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

You do realise that murder has just about the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal offence, right?

I tend to think that doesn't matter. First degree murder= life sentence, just like it was for their victim. Child molesters= life sentence. Or 25 years in gaol plus naming and shaming. Child molesters, once released, should be known, so that we can keep our kids away from them.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

With convicted serial pedophiles, child killers etc. the protection of the community should be the first priorty, their "rights" should be a very distant second.

Ok. Serial 'pedophile' can be abused, if you mean actual physical abuse then I agree. Of course if someone continues to sexually abuse children even after a prison sentence they probably do need to spend the rest of their time behind bars. Serial child killers? How many of those do we even have?

I probably agree with you in these rather extreme cases, I just fear in doing so you might be painting alot of those who don't need such treatment with the same stroke.

 

[withoutaface]

We should remember that in such extreme cases the judges would tend to give them life sentences anyway.

 

[Serius]

I bet highpingbastard is just collecting our names and stuff so he can name and shame us.

Also, i love it when NTB and Waf weigh into the debate and are basically on my side.

 

[banco55]

We should remember that in such extreme cases the judges would tend to give them life sentences anyway.

John Lewthwaite who served 25 years in jail for raping and killing 2 children (while on parole) was released recently (he's currently back in jaiil for violating his parole AGAIN). He should never have seen the light of day again. Preferably he would have been hung years ago.

 

[frog12986]

Law and Order as an election issue, whilst avidly opposed by the intelligentsia, resonates strongly with the mainstream community.

The Coalition Plans to date, raises extremely pertinent questions about responsibility. Although many people continually lead us to believe that under the proposal 10 year olds will be receiving custodial sentences, the statistics negate this point.

The fact remains that less than 1%of the crimes committed result in a custodial sentence for the perpetrator of the particular crime. In fact the clear up rate for most offences is well below 10%. This is where it becomes about making individuals, who are conscious and fully aware of their actions, responsible for the choices that they continually make. Most youths are very conscious of the way they act, and the choices they subsequently make. The notion of right and wrong is too simplistic.

If anything, it is not being able to discern between right and wrong that is the issue for most young people, but rather their inability to perceive danger and associated signs. The most pertinent point therein, is that the ability to do so does not become fully develped until the early to mid 20's. So if we apply that line of thinking, as with the so-called inability to discern between right and wrong for 10-14 year olds, do we reform the car licensing system to prevent 17-22 year olds from obtaining licences as they do not possess the necessary cognitive abilities?

I do not see how a legal doctrine (doli incapax) that was developed in a society very different and far less advanced than today, can remain despite the massive transformation in education, information distribution and knowledge. The conservative (yet somehow socially progressive) legal world sees these kinds of policies as an encroachment on their monopoly of legal expertise.

This isnt about ensuring that these offenders are drawn and quartered, its about developing a sense of responsibility in a society where this is becoming increasingly absent. Further, there should be a greater emphasis on parental resonsbility and subsequent sanctions in face of recidivist youth offenders. Criminologists can attempt to understate the extent of youth crime and anti-social behaviour and pass it off as a 'moral panic' through statistics, however it is society that ultimately makes the judgement on the reality of it.

As for naming and shaming, its impact on the victim, as stated, tends to reduce the potential benefits.

/rant

 

[Josie]

My 10 year old brother definately has no idea what he's doing.

Although the nastiest thing he'd ever do would be to call you "Smelly" and laugh hysterically.

 

[withoutaface]

John Lewthwaite who served 25 years in jail for raping and killing 2 children (while on parole) was released recently (he's currently back in jaiil for violating his parole AGAIN). He should never have seen the light of day again. Preferably he would have been hung years ago.

Then the problem lies with the judges. You can't use rigid legislature as a substitute for an incompetent judiciary.

EDIT: He also "only" killed one child.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

He should never have seen the light of day again

So if you rape/murder a child, even in a drunken rage you should recieve life no matter what? The mother of the little girl that was killed even feels the media has been pressuring him, hounding him, turning the community as a mob against him.

(he's currently back in jaiil for violating his parole AGAIN)

For a minor offense which most people would have been let off for.

There's two sides to what's going on...

http://www.nswccl.org.au/news/show_pr.php?relNum=10&relYear=2006

 

[Gilbert1]

There's two sides to what's going on...

http://www.nswccl.org.au/news/show_pr.php?relNum=10&relYear=2006

Yes but dont you see. In adding 'naming and shaming' there will never be two sides of what has happened. It will be your just doomed for all eternity.

 

[banco55]

So if you rape/murder a child, even in a drunken rage you should recieve life no matter what?

Yep. Ideally you'd have mandatory life in prison and execution as an option for murdering a child.

 

[highpingbastard]

Thank you all for your participation in the Grassroots online forum discussion. Here is a link to the published report.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/grassroo...1173166881630.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

For those who contributed and we requested to quote you but can't find your response, it could have been that the sub-editors cut them out in the final editing phase.

Again, thanks for your participation and we look forward to future discussions.

Regards,
Kit Yap and Thao Tran.

 

[wuddie]

jeez, grow some balls and report that bastard.

if the victim isn't going to report the offender in the first place, then he/she might learn the lesson the second time around, the third time... because the offender will keep doing it until the victim does something about it. they HAVE to report it to the police. it's just common sense.

think about the last time someone got bashed in your school, the guy isnt going to stop after one punch, he'll keep going at it until the victim retaliates or the teacher comes - or till the victim bleeds or faints or dies.

in regard to the 'emotional attachment' saga, clearly the offender doesnt have anything left in him/her - otherwise he wont be doing it in the first place. no?

so i say just grow some freaken balls, and tell the cops.

 

[Stott Despoja]

so i say just grow some freaken balls, and tell the cops.

Of course! Whoever thought that the solution could be ever so simple?

 

[ur_inner_child]

jeez, grow some balls and report that bastard.

if the victim isn't going to report the offender in the first place, then he/she might learn the lesson the second time around, the third time... because the offender will keep doing it until the victim does something about it. they HAVE to report it to the police. it's just common sense.

think about the last time someone got bashed in your school, the guy isnt going to stop after one punch, he'll keep going at it until the victim retaliates or the teacher comes - or till the victim bleeds or faints or dies.

in regard to the 'emotional attachment' saga, clearly the offender doesnt have anything left in him/her - otherwise he wont be doing it in the first place. no?

so i say just grow some freaken balls, and tell the cops.

Please. I'm sure a child who is going through primary/highschool does not have the courage readily available to report their parents and get them arrested, named and shamed; thus breaking up the family, leaving your life into the hands of a foster home even though you love your parents anyway, or giving the spouse of the offender absolutely no say in their personal/emotional/financial/mental life etc.

No matter how horrible your parents can be, right to the root of your conscience, you still love them. It's hard, there's no doubt about that.

 

[wuddie]

i was only talking about the scenarios where it is between two grown ups. you can beat up a child senseless and you can still convince them it is good for them, and they will be as gullible as anything. not that i encourage it, but reporting domestic violence between adults is a matter of choice. whereas children, well they are kinda screwed for the time being.