Roscop: The language is English.

# To bash is to inflict physical harm by administering blows.
# Bashers are those who bash.
# A basher lobby is people who persistently advocate leaving or setting bashers free to assault their targets.
# Such advocates for bashers may wriggle out of being seen to advocate freedom to bash, by brushing aside any proposals for denying bashers freedom to bash as "gibberish".

What part of my proposals is too hard to follow? The vocabulary? The sentence construction? The internal logic?

Or the outcome - that anything that denies bashers the freedom to bash is too unpalatable to comprehend?

Domestic violence surely includes threat to commit violence, because I think under the same Act AVO's are issued in advance.

Domestic violence surely has to include verbal abuse that drives the victim to kill themselves.

What difference is there from a hit on the head or suicide, dead anyway.

JF: "Domestic violence surely has to include verbal abuse that drives the victim to kill themselves."

One can't be convicted of verbal abuse in a court. It's not an offence under any Crimes Act. Shifting the definition of violence to something that is not actual violence is just another copout to protect bashers' uinimpeded power to get to their partners and bash them.

Actual violence - assault - is an indictabe offence. The way to stop the continued violence (real violence, not mere insubordination) is to reform the penalties to tie the bashers' hands and set the victims free. I hope the number of people in the wider community who want bashers free to bash (i.e. at large) doesn't reflect the proportion in this tiny thread. If it does, efforts to tackle DV are a lost cause.

.....Actual violence - assault - is an indictabe offence

Apparently not EJ, did you not see that young thug on the sunny coast get off because the judge for some obscure reason chose not to view the incriminating video evidence.

Our judiciary system has become somewhat of a lottery and can hardly be relied upon as a deterrent with regards to domestic violence offenders.

As I've said all along, identify the issues, then channel funds towards them because until then we are simply throwing money at the symptoms rather than the causes.

I have seen first hand how ridiculous the system is and I have to wonder how many times the police say the words like 'here we go again' when the call comes out from yet another repeat DV victim.

Bravo! Rehctub has hit the nail on the head, identifying the reason why the law is not protecting victims from domestic violence:

"Our judiciary system has become somewhat of a lottery and can hardly be relied upon as a deterrent with regards to domestic violence offenders."

Now that DV is at last part of a national conversation, let society govern the law through parliament instead of leaving DV victims at the mercy of basher-friendly judges, magistrates and prosecutors, to say nothing of callous psychobabblers on parole boards.

There needs to be an impetus to setting minimum time actually served for each level of defined assault - say seven years for common domestic assault to 15 years for ABH, 25 for manslaughter, and life meaning life for murder.

Drastic escalation for repeat offences. Release at end of sentence be decided by the Justice Minister, any basher leanings constrained by personal liability for heavy financial damages if the scumbag reoffends after release.

To satisfy the bean counters, radically slash prison sentences for non-violent crimes.

@Emperor Julian, "One can't be convicted of verbal abuse in a court."

I think swearing at police can lead to a conviction in court.

It is verbal abuse that leads to violence in a domestic partnership and to long term recrimination by an ex partner.

Law can be amended.

Surely law can be amended to include issue of a warning to stop domestic verbal abuse, such as an AVO, and penalty for ignoring such warning, as with an AVO intended to prevent violence.

Surely prevention is best.