Or alternatively, Emperor Julien, we could go with your psychologically sound idea of 'banging up' for life everyone who ever raises their hand at anyone else in the domestic environment?

Would there ever be enough jails for all those people?

Obviously, the DV perpetrators would get parole when their sentence finishes and get back out, so surely we need to come up with some more financially viable ways of tackling this subject, rather than throwing every DV perpetrator in jail forever?

Suseonline I don't think the Emperor is planning on letting them out. We will need some really big jails.

I found an interesting piece from what appears to be a neutral(ish) source in the DV gender wars addressing some of the points I've been trying to make http://www.revelstokecurrent.com/2012/06/15/on-violence-against-men/

I'm not familiar with the site from elsewhere, I did though like the way the issue was approached seemingly as an outsider to the topic.

R0bert

Roscop,

"Poirot is that because you don't want to be quoted in future and you want to be able to be/remain selective in you denouncements of filicide perpetrators based on gender?"

Where have I been "selective in [my] denouncements of filicide"?

Go ahead - cough up the evidence?

The only person who says I'm selective in my denouncements of filicide - is you, Roscop.

Is that another one of your "wild theories" (plural)?

Illicit extension! No blowout in gaol ccupancy. Also gaols may well be able to run much more cheaply than now if they are reserved for violent criminals. No comforts.

Imprisoning everyone who commits ABH (rather more than raising a hand) in a domestic setting would stop the offences dead. Few further offences with the perps banged up, few further calls on prisons. Large ongoing supply of scumbags unlikely.

No parole before the victim voluntarily sanctions it. That removes lives of fear of perp's release.

Locking up offenders isn't a psychological measure for deterrence - simply sweeping the violent criinals out of the homes and off the streets.

There's a corrollary. Imprisonment is a violent sanction suitable only for violent offences. Empty prisons of all non-violent offenders - use non-custodial sanctions as deterrents.

Incidentally for the diversionary gender warriors, the domestic offence to which they refer as including large numbers of female offenders is abuse, not violence. It doesn't come within the ambit of domestic violence, which is violent assault occasioning ABH or worse. It's mere issue-dodging obfuscation to conflate abuse with violence.

EmperorJulian, I do agree that we should not be keeping non-violent offenders in prison and support incarceration of the genuinely violent until such a point as they can be credibly assessed as not presenting an ongoing threat.

In regard to your last paragraph perhaps a read of http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/DV/Gender%20Paradigm%20In%20Domestic%20Violence.pdf

The assertions you make are not based on evidence.

R0bert

Suseonline, Friday, 9 October 2015 10:31:06 AM,

Thanks for your reply.

I asked because there has been a lot of public unrest for many years over courts delivering lenient sentences for serious crimes where the offender could claim relief through cultural traditions or 'sad' background. There are always examples involving indigenous girl and woman victims. It is unnecessary to give links.

A gang of young men should not get away almost Scott Free because their victim (and they) are Aboriginal (Qld). Likewise a man who brandished and fired an illegal gun and put his boot on the neck of his child victim before committing statutory rape (a child marriage case, Northern Territory) should not get away with a 24hr custodial 'sentence', the reduction being for 'cultural reasons'.