Suseonline,

You say "society is finally demanding that domestic violence is treated in the same way as all other criminal violence offenses...". What society are you talking about? It certainly wouldn't include the domestic violence industry. It must be very happy with the way things are.

If no associated criminal charges have been laid, there is no requirement, unlike with other offenses, that an offense having being alleged to having been committed be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

With all the tax-payer funded assistance readily standing by and given to her, any half-baked drama queen can easily get a court to make a domestic violence order separating a parent from his children for weeks or months.

The object of the legal process is at the first court mention is to get the respondent to accept an AVO (or whatever it is called in a particular jurisdiction) on the basis of making "no admissions". The court is not interested in the facts of the matter. Perversely its up to the respondent to have the allegations/facts of the matter tested in court and in Victoria according to the Legal Aid website that will be a minimum of 28 days before it gets to that stage. Even if successful in rebutting the allegations the court can still keep the order in place on the basis the applicant's claim of fear irrespective of whether that fear is reasonably or unreasonably held.

Yes indeed, very few people in society would understand just how evil the domestic violence legal process is

Roscop, I know the VRO system is not good. If it was, then many women and children would still be alive.
Have you got any other ideas how really vulnerable women can be kept safe from really violent criminal men? And you know there are men who are violent even before the women talk about leaving them, let alone try to leave, I have met these couples in their own homes, and I was frightened by this myself.

Other than physical signs of violence on a woman's body, how the hell are the police to know if they are telling the truth about their partners violence or not?
Do you think the men are going to say, "yes that's right officer, I do want to kill this woman"? So they say they don't have enough evidence for a VRO, and the next thing you know the woman is dead. Do you think it is easy for the police?

How can you possibly say anyone at all is happy with a system where so many people are still being killed by their intimate partners?
I would suggest it isn't the feminists who are happy about it...

It seems to me that DV is a mental health issue and treating it as such would cost big bucks so the Government is happy to plod along with 'bandaid' solutions and keep the costs down even if it means that more people suffer.

There is a need for a holistic approach to understand and find solutions to DV, a holistic approach from the cause of the first argument and through to a DV case being heard in Court, and consequences beyond.

For example there could be an 'Apprehended Future Violence Order' to help prevent physical and psychological abuse and violence in the future.

It is abuse that usually leads to violence.

Bullying involves abuse and can lead to violence even among school children.

I think rape has severe penalty, in part to help prevent the long term psychological impact of rape occurring.

DV does not just stop when the domestic situation ceases.

Definition of the D and the V needs holistic consideration. The V is not just about a bruise or drawing blood.

Joe and RObert,

"[fourth post]"

"Post limit is still going, I'm surprised."

You do realise that in the general section you get eight posts per 24 hours for each thread - as long as you don't go over the maximum for the section in that time.

It's only in the articles section that you're limited to 4 posts in 24 hours.

RObert,

I see you've gushed forth in your usual fashion....still 75 women dead this year due to DV.

So posting figures such as:

"Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)

...should show up in the statistics re deaths....it doesn't.

But maybe:

"Range of findings due to variety of samples and operational definitions of PV"

So it's all a bit willy-nilly?

@Poirot cc @RObert

"Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)

...should show up in the statistics re deaths....it doesn't."

I'm baffled as to whether you've applied poor logic or female logic?