Because not enough women own a licensed handgun and are then able to claim self-defense and justifiable homicide as a defense!? Ditto the elderly and flail! And only attacked because they're seen as essentially defenseless!

Or alternatively, believe the BS because they want it to be true, even as that small still voice starts to scream otherwise, or put property, pride and position ahead of an outcome and justice, before someone, usually the woman, gets permanently harmed or killed!

That said, if we could take up the Scandinavian practice of year long chaperoned trial marriages?

The older chaperon, who nonetheless seeks the happiness of the couple, is not blinded by desire and too many hormones and is likely to ask some pertinent questions about reactions that seem entirely out of place, when real love and genuine caring is present!?

Let the R soles become dependent on the paid for sex industry; and never ever become husbands or fathers, and thereby cure most of the aforementioned problems, before they ever become problems!

And assisted by AVO's that are rigorously enforced, with as much force as need; even where that includes lethal force; always providing, the amount of force needed produces no exceptions to the rule of law!

One warning shot should be all the warning these recidivist serially abusing R soles deserve or need, when the next one warns the trespasser right between the eyes!

The law and those who uphold it, need to say what they mean and mean what they say! No ifs buts or maybes!

Even so, I'd like to see most of these recidivist serial abusive men, face a firing squad, which would still be too good for them; but put a permanent end to the problem/make the women and children safe/not forced to fight over common property; or ever feel unsafe ever again!
Rhrosty.

Well, thank you Ilsa Evans for imparting your in-depth DV knowledge upon these pages for us to be accordingly shocked and angered.

But meanwhile, in today's The Age...
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/game-of-thrones-sophie-turner-loved-sansa-starks-brutal-scene-20150519-gh4o6w.html

< begin quote>

Entertainment

Game of Thrones' Sophie Turner 'loved' Sansa Stark's brutal scene.

Ramsay Bolton, played by Iwan Rheon, said it was a 'mind blowing' scene with Sophie Turner as Sansa Stark.

Sansa Stark was grimly assaulted by her atrocious new husband at the end of Monday's Game of Thrones episode, but the actress who plays her - Sophie Turner - was secretly excited about the scene.

After she was forced to endure former worst-guy-ever Joffrey Baratheon, we thought it couldn't get any worse for poor Sansa in terms of arranged grooms.

But that assumption was proved wrong when the Lady of Winterfell was set up with the even-more-awful Ramsay Bolton.

Ramsay, who is known to kill other women he gets "bored" with, forced himself on his new wife while making his human pet and Sansa's former brotherly figure Theon Greyjoy watch on.

It was a ghastly scene that left fans shocked on social media, but at least the actors had a good time making it."

<end quote>

What!

A good time making it!

Really?

Yep!

Well there you go. The DV Industry is running hot. Now it's even entertainment for the masses and enjoyed by cheery actresses. I'm guessing the audience is mostly female but overall DV (Family Violence) is definitely getting popular all round and on the agenda for 2015 with pollies pouring taxpayer's money into it from both federal and state coffers.

With this level of promotion, I'm thinking it's definitely going to start filling up the those Family Courts, which is what it's really about anyway, and not to mention the women's magazines and gossipnet-dot-com social media venues.

Still, I suppose it's good to see someone doing well in this otherwise stagnant economy of ours.

Keep up the good work Ilsa.

domestic violence is pitiful and tragic. Most the time it happens in dysfunctional families which feminist, Governments, the porn industry or anyone else has any no intention of fixing. Its easier just to throw money at the groups that scream the loudest. We see it in the Indigeneous community and we now see it in the wider community. Rates of domestic violence is much higher in the homosexual community (surprise surprise). Must be all those homophobes forcing them to bash, rape and murder. Some interest group will suggest more money and 'education'is the answer. What jokers!

If there were better examples to prove, "(that) women do so poorly from sentencing in domestic violence cases" the author should have chosen them.

"Society itself is put under the microscope, and found wanting."

Because we practice the rule of law and imprison people for lengthy periods when they commit murder? I would contend that this is a good thing.

.

Dear runner,

.

« Rates of domestic violence is much higher in the homosexual community (surprise surprise). »
.

That is correct, runner. The rate is higher but the number is obviously much lower as there are far less same sex-couples as there are heterosexual couples (same-sex couples represent only 0.56% of total).

According to a 2014 survey by the Australian Institute of Criminology :

« In June 2010, there were 29,000 same-sex couples and 5,192,400 opposite-sex couples identified from the Labour Force Survey (ABS 2011). In 2009–10, there was one same-sex intimate partner homicide and 59 opposite-sex intimate partner homicides recorded in the NHMP. Based on these figures, the intimate partner homicide rate calculated for the most recent year of NHMP data collection (2009–10) was 3.4 per 100,000 for same-sex couples and 1.1 per 100,000 for opposite-sex couples. »

Same-sex relationships count for less than 2% of all intimate partner homicides :

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/461-480/tandi469.html
.

« Must be all those homophobes forcing them to bash, rape and murder. »
.

The reasons indicated in the Institute’s survey are as follows:

Revenge: same-sex 3% - opposite-sex 2%
Jealousy: same-sex 9% - opposite-sex 7%
Desertion/termination: same-sex 6% - opposite sex 19%
Domestic argument: same-sex 25% - opposite sex 56%
Money: same-sex 9% opposite sex 2%
Drugs: same-sex 0% - opposite sex <1%
Racial vilification: same-sex 3% - opposite sex 0%
Alcohol related argument: same-sex 0% - opposite sex 3%
.

No mention of homophobes, runner. But if you have anything on that, perhaps you would be kind enough to share it with us ?

.

I am truly baffled by this? One Victorian man got 11 years for his first murder (Time served), after release 10 years for his second murder and then after his third murder after his second release, supposed "Life".
My question is the number of murderers who get out at around 12 years on average but now a woman who has a good defence is held on for over 15 years? Is this true and surely the best defence would be to appeal this on the basis of other murderers getting 12 years average. Can someone assist me here? I just do not understand or is there something that the author does not say or does not know?

Ms Evans,

Amazingly you chose Robyn Dale Buller as the feature character for your argument. I don't know what you base your statements on regarding Buller, as you provide no references. However an online article in The Age (20.12.2002), titled "Murder she wrote, after consulting the internet", paints an entirely different picture of the character you attempt to present to readers of your article. Buller was convicted twice (at her trial and her retrial)

A few excerpts from The Age article:

"She used the internet to bone up on murder before cold-bloodedly shooting her sleeping husband in the back of the head with a high-powered rifle."

"Buller maintains she was trying to kill only herself when she shot her husband at point-blank range with the .357 calibre Magnum rifle."

"She claimed she once spent a terrifying night outside cowering against her dogs after her husband brought a stranger home from the pub to rape her.
Buller said she had not mentioned these details at her 2001 trial for fear of tainting his memory.
But in her recent trial, Buller had no qualms about painting a picture of her abusive marriage."

"But two West Australian Supreme Court juries have now convicted her of wilful murder after hearing she used the internet both before and after the killing to find out how to commit a murder and cover up the crime."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/20/1040174378605.html