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?

This looks like Cassandra is trying to bend a few laws to make it even more one sided against men. Surely with activists judges it can't be too hard for her to rip off the men for her & of course her client's advantage.

I wonder how many very doubtful Protection Orders she has managed to get against for her clients against their men, to make ripping the men off easier.

I wonder how many men here have ever hit a woman. I haven't, & in fact I haven't hit anyone since I started at my last school & had to fight the class bully. That's only 63 years ago of course.

I have had to grab the wrists of a couple of ladies, who thought they had some right to hit men, to protect myself. I wonder if such thoughts were down to the Cassandras of this world, or 60s Hollywood.

Bet Cassandra would claim I was committing domestic valance for doing that of course.

I switched off as soon as I saw it was another men bad women poor defenseless victim trash. Come back when you want to fix DV.

I must admit, until two close female friends became the victims of domestic violence, I didn't give it much thought. It was then that I realised that domestic violence is treated as a pseudo-crime only. Men, and in far fewer cases, women get away with crimes that would not be tolerated if committed by members of the general community. Marriage and de facto relationships give perpetrators a free pass.

One of the female friends I mentioned was thrown through a plate-glass window by her husband and nearly died of blood loss. The only thing that saved her life was that her husband took her to the nearest hospital, not to have her wounds addressed, but to have her psychiatrically assessed. He threw a massive tantrum when the hospital staff questioned him about why she was cut to pieces by a plate glass window. He immediately went to his lawyer to issue a restraining order. It cost her almost $100,000 to defend herself from his claims that she was a violent person, and finally to get 50% custody of their son. The court was made fully aware of her physical injuries, but still treated him as a husband and father, with full rights to parental custody.

Had he thrown someone other than his wife through a plate glass window, resulting in severe physical damage, he would have stood trial for aggravated assault. But because he was her husband, his case was treated as a family dispute. She tried to bring charges against her husband, but the police wouldn't touch it. Instead, they offered her sympathetic advice to just stay away from him - a bit hard when he was sending her up to 50 text messages a day telling her that she was a whore and conniving bitch.

The court was shown these texts, but chose to ignore them. He was just an upset husband. Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along.

The law has to catch up with this. So far, there has been one law for intimate partners and another for the general community.

Killarney:

What you are arguing for is that punishment for domestic violence should be the same as for any other type of violence. What the author of the article is arguing for is that domestic violence should be punished with special measures over and above other types of violence without having a good reason why this should happen.

The punishment for domestic violence should be the same as any other type of violence. If your example is the norm then more effort needs to be made to make sure that domestic violence is treated as other types of violence but one example does not make an argument.

"The issue has become so extreme that it has prompted discussion by some political parties of dismantling the entire family court system."

Yes there are a few politicians who want Australian Family Law overhauled to make it fairer to men.

SMH July 30, 2016:

"Pauline Hanson's One Nation party went to the election with an explosive policy of abolishing the Family Court and replacing it with a tribunal of "mainstream Australians".

Commentators say Hanson has tapped decades-old grievances among a cohort of disenchanted men, particularly those in regional areas faced with growing unemployment. After meeting Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week, Hanson described the family law courts as "huge on my agenda"."

Phanto

I don't normally like putting up posts that give anecdotal accounts, because readers have every right to suspect that the commenter may be making it all up. Other than exaggerating some aspects for dramatic effect, the anecdote I gave really happened.

There is a place in the legal system to create a hierarchy of crimes within the category of domestic violence. By way of comparison, Sweden created a system of categories of rape. Forcing or cajoling a woman to have sex without a condom is viewed as a class of rape, as it 'softly' assaults a person's bodily integrity. But, legally, it is classed at the bottom end of of a hierarchy of rape crimes, the worst of which is the traditional rape crime of a psychopath jumping out of a bush and violently raping and/or murdering someone who happens to be passing by.

Domestic abuse could also be legislated in the same way, with a hierarchy of crimes relating to intimate partner violence - from basic emotional harrassment to full-scale assault. Most incidents of intimate partner violence have witnesses, especially children, so this is not outside the realm of legally punishable offences.

The law is stuck within the traditional premise that what occurs within an intimate relationship stays within the relationship. There was a time when marital rape had absolutely no legal recourse, but legislative reform put an end to that. The same can be applied to intimate partner violence. The law is long overdue to apply a similar set of laws on intimate partner violence.

Cassandra, i must admit i have not read all your post but from the first page it appears the usual blah blah blah.

What I assume you fail to realise is that to treat DV, we first have to recognise the real causes. For example;

Take away those who's religion promotes disrespecting women. Then take away a large portion of indigenous DV as this is treatable by removing the likes of alcohol, then we must also identify the cases of DV from relationships built around elicit drug use and finally, the cases caused by man hating, vindictive women, hell bent on seeking revenge, usually through the kids.

Now once we identity these, then put them aside, i think you will find the problem is nowhere near as bad as you make out, however, by not identifying the causes, you are merely treating the symptom and ignoring the cause.

All sorts of excuses are being dreamed up by social engineers to fend off action to put a stop to domestic violence by putting an immediate stop to those who commit it by committing assault.

Simply bang the mongrels up in gaol, first offence, and leave them there to do hard time until the victims authorise their release - even if it means decades so the victims can get on with their lives free of fear of assault. Reduce gaol costs by locking the bashers 23 hours a day in their cells and by abolishing imprisonment for a whole range of non-violent offences.

It is really important to take the word Domestic out of it. The fact that it occurs in and around the home should not make it a lesser charge nor a lesser sentence.
Our homes should be the safest places we can possibly be. Violence in the home is perhaps the worst crime of all because it happens where we should be safest.

Sadly the powers that be give the perpetrator sanctity in the home by viewing criminal actions which take place there as being somehow lesser than street crime.
Call the crimes what they are: grievous bodily harm, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, murder, coward punch too ( why does the place it happened lessen its effect?)

There are lots of words spoken about crime in the home but I left a violent abusive man 10 years ago and I have seen absolutely no change in how perpetrators are being dealt with in that time. Instead of debating the matter ask women who have been involved why they feel so let down by authorities and government.

Hilily makes the point clear as day, the truth that bashers and those sympathetic with bashers weasel away from: "Our homes should be the safest places we can possibly be. Violence in the home is perhaps the worst crime of all because it happens where we should be safest."

So end their bullying rule now and have done with it. Lock the "I did me block" scum up and leave them locked up till their victims say when they should be released and on what terms. Why hesitate behind a heap of social engineering and gender stereotpying and psychobabble about persuading them to change their ways? Simply stop them

Jules, brilliant policy you have thought up "bang the mongrels in gaol". Would that be with or without first a trial?

To Roscop: Nothing to weasel out of here to let thugs get away with "doing their block". First a trial for assault committed in the victim's home (where the victim should be even safer than someone randomly attacked in the street or a nightclub or somewhere). Then if the basher is convicted of the assault an indefinite prison sentence to be ended only if and when and on what conditions the victim freely accepts the basher's release.

It's not rocket science. Just simple justice at the perp's expense, not the victim's and the community's as is the case today leading to DV being totally unnecessarily an ongoing blight with perps and perp sympathisers pushing to let them remain in a position to do DV

Jules, "Nothing to weasel out of here to let thugs get away with "doing their block" but what if the basher isn't convicted? Have you entertained that possibility?..I suspect not. What brilliant policy do you have for that situation? Maybe a retrial? Cycle rinse until convicted?

Hilly I agree with most of your post except the last line reflects the big issue with this topic "Instead of debating the matter ask women who have been involved why they feel so let down by authorities and government.".
If you think women who have had a physically abusive spouse feel let down by authorities and government I can assure you the let down is far worse for men. The issues around the violence may be different (although not as different as most assume). Women appear to have more serious fear for their safety, men's lives are at direct risk at a lower rate. Men living with violence they can get almost no support to have stopped and where any attempts to defend themselves (or even call the police) leaves them at risk of being considered the abuser. Living with the risk that if they walk out the abuser is likely to get custody of the children.

I have you to see any serious research on the relationship between men as victims DV and male suicide rates but personally suspect it's a not insignificant factor.

The big risk on calls for tougher justice is that it's against a backdrop where most are in denial that females can be violent to their partners, where most have a stereotype of dominating male abusing woman so firmly fixed in their minds that they can't consider that may not be the norm of DV.

Tougher justice in a society where DV is framed so successfully by paternalist's and feminists alike as violence against women that most unless they have had reason to look closer can't comprehend the rest of the story.

If women are feeling let down, they have been let down by those seeking to back up an ideology of male domination by lies and misinterpretation of DV whilst hindering genuine research into causes and better options to deal with it.

There is no one size fits all but there is a large correlation between prevalence of DV and to issues such as like mental illness, substance abuse, unemployment etc.

R0bert

In today's news:

"A man, 22, was rushed to Townsville Hospital and is in a critical condition after being stabbed in the chest after a heated argument at a house in Valencia St.

A woman, 26, was arrested and charged with grievous bodily harm and breach of a domestic violence order over the attack."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/kirwan-woman-charged-after-man-rushed-to-townsville-hospital-with-stab-wound/news-story/18bc505712da021f88dc9e5806fd3f4e

If convicted maybe this would be a good case for introducing tougher penalties. What do you think Ms Pullos?

Roscop: A good case indeed if the stabbing wasn't self-defence during a physical assault on the woman. Having "broken the ice" by banging up a female perp to soothe male perps' feelings of "victimhood" then the practice of indefinitely gaoling violent domestic bullies irrespective of gender could be launched all over Australia. End of the unnecessary DV epidemic, back to tackling real social issues that aren't as easily solved.

Julian, what is this qualification " if the stabbing wasn't self-defence during a physical assault on the woman"? I always thought you were an ultra tough "no excuses" man. I'm surprised you don't seem to be aware of one of the basic tenets of the DV industry...which is "there is no excuse for domestic violence".

Now if Cassandra had left out the "domestic" bit & just called for tougher & more immediate penalties for all violence I would be right behind her. It is time our fool magistrates stopped letting violent people out on bail, & our parole boards stopped letting them out of prison, too early. See a report on an off duty cop, stabbed between the eyes by a young vicious hood home invader, let out on bail twice in the preceding couple of weeks.

What the hell are our magistrates on, it must be pretty hallucinogenic, going by their behaviour & rulings. I personally see no difference whether it is a stranger, cop, friend or spouse, if some fool bashes anyone, they should be held where they can do no further harm until brought to trial.

However my bulldust detector raises like the hackles on a cranky dog, when some womens liber Family Law specialist makes this type of call restricted to "domestic' violence matters. Having watched a few divorce proceedings, I would not trust a divorce lawyer as far as I could kick them

I suggest you return the Code of Hammurabi...

(sigh) Do I have to be Cicero or someone nailing down offences which Blind Freddy (including the Blind Freddies on the bench) couldn't avoid noticing is a physical assault, embodying physical aggression.

Violent assault doesn't mean striking back in a violent fracas between violent people. It means initiating violence. If it's domestic violence it means violent assault in a domestic situation. It means physical aggression in response to real or perceived injustices which are not physically violent. It means a basher invading personal space from which the victim wishes to exclude the basher.

All this is plainly obvious, and weasel words from basher sympathisers can't change violent aggression into something else or something that is not violent assault into violent assault.

I agree with people (even Eric Abetz!) who want harsh punishment for all bashers who commit physical aggression in any circumstances whether domestic or not and especially harsh punishment for home invaders or anyone else assaulting a victim in his or her home.

We've managed to change the law on marital rape and workplace sexual harrassment, so why can't the DV laws be changed as well?

Both these crimes were once sacrosanct - their victims just had to accept that what was done to them was just 'the way things are'.

But now, the perpetrators know that they could face criminal prosecution.

DV perpetrators are not stupid. They know the law is on their side. For now ...

Killarney, re "DV perpetrators are not stupid. They know the law is on their side. For now ..." I beg to differ.

Alleged female victims know they can get protection without the substantiation of any evidence whatsoever. Most protection orders are handed out on that basis. Its just that the courts don't want to produce statistics that clearly shows that to be the case. The court process has been devised so that alleged perpetrator is blind sided by the process.

Roscop

'Alleged female victims know they can get protection without the substantiation of any evidence whatsoever.'

That's my whole point. They DON'T. The courts pay little to no attention to obvious evidence of abuse. As for restraining orders, they are a dime a dozen in the Family Law sphere. The police are basically powerless to enforce them. Lawyers just tell their clients to observe them, but basically ignore them, because they hold no advantage in divorce and custody disputes. And, as R0bert keeps arguing, the victims are not all female.

Killarney:
We have acknowledged that rape happens in marriage and it is treated as rape in the same way that all other rapes are treated. You cannot be 'more raped' because you are in a marriage. What does sexual harrassment in the workplace have to do with domestic violence? It was something that was ignored in the past and now it is dealt with as it should be. Domestic violence is not a new crime nor is non-domestic violence. Non-domestic violence is dealt with appropriately and domestic violence is treated in the same way as non-domestic violence. So what else needs to be done in terms of the approach by the the law to domestic violence? If every victim of domestic violence has the support of the law then what else do they have a right to?

Killarney,

I don't know what you mean when you say: "The courts pay little to no attention to obvious evidence of abuse."

My understanding is that in most cases the evidence consists only of uncorroborated statements from the alleged victim. You know, the "she said" without the "he said" because most of these matter are dealt with in the first instance, without the alleged perpetrator present. So where does "obvious" come into it?

Roscop

The example I gave was that there was clear evidence of domestic assault - the reports given by the hospital staff, the OTT text messages and also (which I didn't state in previous comments) witnesses. There was also a report from a Family Counsellor commissioned by the Court, who stated categorically that the father had serious anger-management and control issues.

Yet, the court dismissed all of this. The final ruling simply fell back on the legal Howard government requirement to award 50-50 custody.

My friend's well-documented history of being a victim of domestic violence mattered not one iota. Neither did the police give a damn. They just administered well-meaning advice - no more.

Family Law lawyers have complete contempt for DV restraining orders. They just see them as tit-for-tat domestic manipulation. As do the courts.

This is why the law has to be updated and revised. For too long, prevailing opinion has assumed that DV is a punishable crime, equal to all other punishable crimes. In reality, it is NOT. Only a very miniscule number of DV perpetrators stand trial or are convicted. Basically, they have to take an axe to their entire family, before the law will deign to intervene.

Legal precedent gives DV perpetrators a legal pass to do whatever they like, simply because their victim is their intimate partner. One law for intimate partners and another for the rest of the community.

phanto

I think I've addressed your comment in my reply to Roscop.

2017 could easily be the year DV could be swept off the map with appropriate national legislation and enforcement together with mopping up.

Legislation: Go after the mongrels that actually DO DV, who introduce physical assault into the home. Disallow non-violent provocation as a permitted defence. Bind magistrates' hands with legislated minimum sentences of incarceration until the victim asks for the basher's release and specifies its terms.

Mopping up: Isolate bashers socially in the way drunk drivers are isolated socially. Isolate advocates for bashers in the way anyone who made a practice of speaking up for drunk driving would have to wear social disapproval. Let social engineers go for their lives at trying to redesign society so the "I done me block" impulse is educated out of cretins - best of British luck to them, just so long as doing DV means gaol until the victim says to let the creep out.

Killarney,you said in an earlier post: "Other than exaggerating some aspects for dramatic effect,..."

Because I can't identify which parts of your posts have been exaggerated for dramatic effect I'm treating all of your posts as garbage. I equate exaggerations to lies.

You see, there too many women who front up to court and behave as drama queens (ie say things for dramatic effect). There was a recent well publicized Canadian case (Jian Ghomeshi) which went to trial. At the trial three females testified against the accused. All three were proven in court to be liars. Save for the fact that the accused had kept emails from long long ago, the accused would have been more than likely been convicted and would now be serving serious time in prison. As far as I know none of the three women were charged with perjury and one who did not go public, had her identity suppressed. Now that is where the law really needs to toughened up.

The Ghomeshi Verdict:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOdPfcp4YTQ