Penalties against those who attack police should be more severe in order to deter people from attacking those whose job is to safeguard society. We want police given more protection because we need police to be able to freely go about their duties. There is a reason why these penalties are more severe.

A coward punch is a random attack on people simply going about their business. We should be able to walk down a street without fear of this happening. The penalties are severe because they are designed to protect us and to minimise the risk of attack during a perfectly reasonable activity like going to an area of entertainment or peaceful socialising.

There is no logical reason why domestic violence should incur more severe penalties than any other general act of violence. The two parallels provided by the author are reasonable exceptions but being in a domestic relationship is not.

Domestic relationships are no more worthy of protection than any other relationships in society which incur penalties that are deemed reasonable and appropriate. Why should these relationships receive special treatment?

Why would anyone want special treatment? Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law unless an argument can be presented to entitle them to special treatment. This author says that those in domestic relationships should be given special treatment but does not say why. It is a plea for special treatment rather than an argument. Why would you plea for something unless you felt powerless to do anything about your situation?

The reality is that women are not powerless. They are free to enter and leave domestic relationships at will. They may not feel like they are but that is the reality. Too often they succumb to the social pressures of remaining in domestic relationships when every instinct is telling them to leave. Pleading with society to help them with special treatment does not deal with the underlying issue of their inability to stand up to that society’s pressure.

I fully agree for males as they suffer systemic (legal and support) and hidden disabilities when attacked by violent and manipulative females.

It is the only way to rebalance and ensure equality.

We can't have tougher penalties for DV....we've already got too many aboriginal men in gaol.

Absolutely agree Cassy and would beef up AV's with an locked on irremovable ankle bracelets equipped with a focused charge.

That explodes, with enough force to break an ankle bone, when the routinely ignored court ordered distance is exceeded! A .22 calibre blank would likely do it?

Men who resort to violence against women or kids or the pets as a method of control or exacted obedience, are lower than a snake's belly!

There is a choice! And that choice is to walk away if you're a hen picked or bullied male!

Yes, some men, like those reeducated in Nazi youth camps, may have an excuse? But hardly applicable given the passage of time!

A few months entirely on your pat malone, on a desert island, wouldn't be too severe for incorrigible repeat offenders, preferably before they use a motor vehicle to gain/ram access, then go on to murder the occupants!

Almost as if they were property! And he had property rights!

Me, I'd happily stand them against a brick wall and face a firing squad at dawn! And better more humane treatment meted out by the recidivist wife basher! Poor ickle diddums, did she take your tonka truck off you again?
Alan B.

Mixed views on this.

Firstly the author has gone to pains to portray a crisis and appears to be trying to promote fear rather than a measured understanding. She also appear unable or unwilling to do research to find the numbers of "children, male victims and extended family victims" - overall not that hard to find.

A good start on some numbers around homicide in Australia (2008-10) can be found at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr21/04_homicide.html

Where there is genuine one sided DV write a tougher book and throw it at the perpetrator.

On the other hand perceptions about DV have been so skewed by dodgy research, deliberate misrepresentation of the numbers and attempts to create a climate of panic around the topic that I'm pretty sure that any such changes would be applied very unequally and do nothing to reduce the real problem.

Non advocacy research suggests that the stereotype male controlling woman with DV is not the norm though. In a significant proportion of DV it's mutual with both parties initiating it at times. Also plenty of indication that physical violence as a control mechanism is relatively rare in DV.

Not specifically Australian but a good summary of non-advocacy DV research can be found at http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/

Getting the gender politics out of DV research and anti-DV programs is vital if any real progress is to be made in reducing the harm done by DV in the community.

R0bert

Compulsory child support needs to be included in the definition of domestic violence. You agree with that, Cassandra, don't you?