Proving assault with bodily harm and drafting laws to set minimum gaol time for it is not rocket science.

Drafting laws to set workable criteria for proving verbal abuse behind closed doors really IS rocket science.

I hope JF's proposal isn't a delaying mechanism to oblige victims to remain at the mercy of bashers while think tanks are interminably grappling with the problem of proving "she said" vs "he said" scenarios that take place inside the home and leave no visible evidence.

Locking the bashers away from access their victims really IS prevention. Relief for the victims should not wait for ineffective marriage counselling measures directed to persuading bashers that they should deal with their "anger problems".

It can be argued that intervention orders in some cases, such as the Batty case and the one referenced herein, incite violence ie they have the opposite effect of their intended purpose.

"The horrific killing of a 23-year-old Melbourne woman was a "shocking case" of family violence by a"...cuckolded... "man determined to get his revenge on his wife, a coroner has found."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-30/sargun-ragi-death-highlights-failures-of-police-coroner-finds/6898726

The deeply flawed feminist 'Patriarchy' paradigm treats all DV offenders as men and all the same, homogeneous in all respects.

Yet quite obviously offenders differ markedly. For example, there are some whose violence is directed at others as well as at their victims indoors, while others reportedly restrict their violence to the home.

Again, some and maybe most, offend through non-physical assaults on their family members, through verbal and manipulative means, even restricting the other party's interpersonal contacts.

Why then do the feds go along with the feminists' bullying and domination when it is apparent from any real science that there are categories of offenders? Why is sloppy social research allowed to advise policy? - Especially where it so obvious that the millions of taxpayers' $$ allocated annually over decades has, even according to the feminists themselves, achieved Sweet Fanny Adams and the problems in the most affected groups, for instance indigenous in the Northern Territory, continue unabated?

It is cynical vote buying that is the problem.

"It can be argued that intervention orders in some cases, such as the Batty case and the one referenced herein [1], incite violence ie they have the opposite effect of their intended purpose."

The basher lobby, abetted by gender-obsessed femmos with whom they endlessly debate identity issues, will relentlessly duck confronting the one common factor in all acts of domestic violence – the basher, be it Greg Anderson or Avjit Singh or some mythical ‘Er Indoors, has had access to a victim because of not being securely locked up.

This avoidance of confronting the scumbags whose violence IS DV takes many forms such as shifting to supposed “causes” being anything except actually committing it, running all the way back to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, stats about this gender or that gender, or rebadging non-violent behaviour as “violence” – all to avoid focusing on the violent criminals themselves.

Marriage counselling has not made victims safe from bashers, but locking the bashers up surely has – until PC fools release them.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-30/sargun-ragi-death-highlights-failures-of-police-coroner-finds/6898726

EmperorJulian,

So here we go again:

" ...the basher, be it Greg Anderson or Avjit Singh or some mythical ‘Er Indoors, has had access to a victim because of not being securely locked up."

If those of the ilk of those mentioned have no convictions for an offense having being committed, on what legal basis do you have people locked up? Just because an autocratic emperor wishes that? If you think we should return to the dark ages...just say it.

Emperor Julian,

"The basher lobby, abetted by gender-obsessed femmos with whom they endlessly debate identity issues...."

Are you intending to add anything "practically" useful to this conversation?

I'm kinda fascinated by your penchant to call people names, while you merrily side-step any real detail in your plan to lock up people en masse.

Can you supply some detail as to how that would work and and how it will be financed?

For instance, how many jails will need to be built in each suburb to hold the hordes?

Will these jails be a short term solution once everybody who commits physical violence learns from their incarceration?

Will these jails be put to other use once the "bashers" are convinced of the error of their ways and decide not to re-offend - or are the "bashers" set to be banged-up indefinitely?

Any detail on preventative strategy or rehabilitation - any insight into how it might be possible in a first world country in 2015 to address the age old problem of domestic violence out there in the suburbs?

Apart from calling people "bashers" and "gender obsessed femmos"?