EmperorJulian :

“... but only violent criminals **DO** domestic violence and they can do so only when they're at large.”

You want to focus on the violent criminals who are at large but how can they be criminals before they are charged? Just because they are violent does not automatically make them a criminal unless the definition of a criminal is anyone who you personally decide is a criminal. That is why we have courts so that a judge or jury can decide against a more objective definition. You seem to convict them without the presumption of innocence. Are you advocating that we dismiss this fundamental principal of our society?

Or are you saying that most of those who are convicted as criminals remain at large? This would seem a problem with the justice system rather than a problem with domestic violence. So which of these two interpretations are we to make? Either we should just accept your definition of a criminal or your real problem is with the lack of appropriate incarceration for criminals.

It is hard to enter into a discussion with you if you are not clear about what you mean.

How can we stop domestic violence before it happens if we only focus on those who are criminals either by your definition or by the definition of the court? It is too late by then. Perhaps you do not really care about stopping domestic violence but are only interested in some kind of revenge?

Talking of "tactics", RObert...

Your own tactics are a case in point. Of all the generalities abounding on this subject in which your argument gains merit, why would you jump into a conversation about Greg Anderson and his brutal crime to further your already well-known viewpoint.

Anderson and his crime are an example of the worst of the worst. Reports from those who dealt with him show that he was uncooperative and aggressive - and in the end he committed a crime of the most brutal nature against an innocent child.

Here's how you put it now:

"My point was very clear that while there is a valid point that pursuit through the courts can contribute to problems I don't think we know enough in this case to draw that conclusion."

Here's the section of your original post to which I responded:

"Roscop, while I agree with what I think the broader point you are making is I do get very cautious about applying it to individual situations without really strong evidence. I've not seen anything that leaves me convinced that we know which part drove which in that particular case."

So there's a subtle shift in your meaning in your latter response - the first being far more open-ended in sprinkling doubt as to the catalyst to Anderson's grotesque actions - the second being a little more dismissive of system harassment for the motive:

1. ".... I've not seen anything that leaves me convinced that we know which part drove which in that particular case."

2. "....I don't think we know enough in this case to draw that conclusion."

If you wish to take me to task for my "tactics", then perhaps you should look at your own an ask why you are taken to task sometimes. It's all very well to appear to sit on the fence, but when you employ that stance in a discussion on the likes of Anderson's crime as a means to inject some nebulous "which part drove what" viewpoint, you come across as calculating and disingenuous

Poirot, like it or not, a contributing factor in many DV cases is the actions of a woman provoking a man.

Now if that man is known to have a violent temper, and notwithstanding the fact that she sticks around, I woukd say that while I don't think it's an excuse to bash her, she has contributed to the problem.

My own son told me he was at the 'beat' a gay bar in Brisbane and smacked a fag 'his words' because he grabbed his dick.

I said to him the the one punch rule could have seen him in jail and that how did he think his mother would have felt.

I also told him that he was part to blame for being there and he said he was with mates that were gay.

Your choice I said but don't put the fox with the hens then cry wolf. It's the same for many of these women I'm afraid. They know the man, yet they insist on taunting him.

Being right or wrong means nothing when you're dead.

rehctub,

"Your choice I said but don't put the fox with the hens then cry wolf. It's the same for many of these women I'm afraid. They know the man, yet they insist on taunting him."

Taunting him?

Using the courts and system to protect oneself and one's child in the case of Anderson (whom we're discussing) is taunting him?

So if that's "taunting" him, then Rosie Batty and the system which tried to protect him, ultimately carry the lion's share of the blame for Luke's violent death at the hands of his uncooperative and aggressive father?

Is that what you're saying?

I think (in the case of a man like Greg Anderson) that's complete and utter BS.

The wriggling to absolve bashers continues.

Phanto, whether a person has been charged or not, if he assaults someone he is a violent criminal. That's what being a violent criminal is. It's not based on my decision, it's based on his action and on what normal people, including even lawyers, know to be a crime. If he's charged and found guilty in a court he's a convicted violent criminal and has a violent criminal record.

Fortunately if the required lobbying is done the laws which already reecognise assault will be augmented to result in the perp being securely locked up and the victim freed from tyranny for a long time.

Phanto referred to a valid point within a comment to which I responded and I overlooked it- my apologies.

How can a victim be protected from a violent criminal before the criminal has been charged and convicted in a court?

This is a danger point remaining in a strategy of locking criminals up. It can't protect the victim from the first offence, which has already been committed before charges are laid. I can't think of anything that can, apart from restraining orders where there is enough cause shown to justify them.

Fortunately it is rare for the first offence to be a catastrophic assault occasioning serious bodily harm.