The War on Women

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

The War on Women

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

In the seven years from 2000 to 2006, 2,697 American soldiers were killed by hostile forces, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another 726 died there accidentally in "non-hostile" incidents. At home, 611 American law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty, including 72 in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Another 554 officers died on the job from traffic accidents, heart attacks, accidental shootings, suicide and other non-hostile incidents.
So, in those seven years, the total number of front-line military and law enforcement deaths was 4,588.
We pay tribute to these fallen men and women, often with national television, newspaper and magazine coverage.
There is another war - largely over looked but even more deadly - with far more victims killed by hostiles. But these dead are not labeled heroes, nor are they honoured in the national media or in formal ceremonies. From time to time, they may attract a spate of publicity as the result of a high profile trial or an inquest that will likely conclude that society let them down once again and recommend changes to prevent future deaths, though these recommendations will be mostly ignored. This is the War on Women.
Compare the raw numbers. In the same seven year period when 4,588 U.S. soldiers and police officers were killed by hostiles or by accident, more than 8,000 women, nearly twice as many, were shot, stabbed, strangled or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives.
In the United States, it's conservatively estimated that in addition to the 1,200 to 1,300 women killed each year by intimate partners, another 5.3 million, age 18 and older are victims of non-lethal domestic abuse.
Based on those numbers, the violence costs the country more than $5.8 billion annually.
Wars usually produce large numbers of refugees and the War on Women has its own refugee camps, in the form of 2,500 or so shelters for battered women and their children across North America. In the United States, more than 300,000 women and children seek safety in shelters each year.
If our governments became aware of terrorist cells that planned to kill and maim thousands of their citizens, would they not muster the full resources of the state to go after and stop them? It is an outrage that this slaughter of women should be continued in so-called progressive Western democracies, or anywhere else in the world.

From The War on Women: Elly Armour, Jane Hurshman and Criminal Violence in Canadian Homes, by Brian Vallée, Copyright © 2007. Published by Key Porter Books.

Some suggested principles:
  • Domestic violence laws must be gender specific, not gender neutral, because by a wide margin women are the ones who end up in the hospital or in the grave.
  • Domestic violence is such a breach of trust, it should be considered as serious a crime as attacking or murdering a police or corrections officer.
  • The penalty for murder of an intimate partner must be severe – 25 years without parole. Otherwise, what's to deter a batterer who sees news stories about men who kill their spouses being charged with manslaughter or second-degree murder and sentenced to five, 10, or 15 years, of which they will likely serve only a third?
  • Whenever possible, the abuser should be removed from the home – to jail or a halfway house – instead of forcing women and children to hide out in shelters.
  • An abuser confined to a halfway house would be required to wear an electronic ankle bracelet and undergo counseling until the courts were through with him.
  • A battered spouse, meanwhile, would be offered counselling and would be supplied with a form of electronic "panic button" that directly alerts police if she suddenly comes under threat.
  • A batterer breaking the terms of bail or court orders against him would be arrested on a new (and serious) breach of trust charge. Break bail, you go to jail – no second chances. Second chances have proved deadly for too many women and their children.
Recommended Legislation:
  • Create a category of crime called femicide with penalties the same as those for first-degree murder (25 years without parole).
  • Whenever there is a history of abuse and a woman is killed by her male intimate, the charge should be femicide, and the provocation defense ("she left me and I just lost it") should not be allowed.
  • Establish halfway houses for batterers so women and children aren't the ones forced to leave the home.
  • Implement legislation (with adequate funding) for universal daycare and provide women with opportunities to earn income and escape a battering spouse.
  • Provide sustained funding for shelters and second-stage (medium-term) housing, with counseling services and income support so women who flee are not forced to return to a batterer for economic reasons.
  • Restore full funding for Status of Women Canada and other women's advocacy groups.
  • In cases of domestic violence, transfer jurisdiction for restraining and protection orders from civil courts to criminal courts, with mandatory incarceration when orders are breached.
  • When restraining or protection orders are in place, make it an offense for a private investigator or other third party, aware of such orders, to find, or seek to find – on behalf of an abuser – an estranged intimate partner who is in hiding or a shelter.
  • Implement full registration and licensing of all firearms.
  • Ensure adequate long-term funding of the front-line services needed by aboriginal women to escape violence.
  • Undertake comprehensive national research on the magnitude of domestic violence in aboriginal communities.
  • Ensure the full participation of aboriginal women in the planning and implementation of the policies that directly affect their welfare.
Brian Vallée in the Toronto Star, Saturday, November 3, 2007
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Pha7e
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Post #2

Post by Pha7e »

If a black man kills a black man, or a white man kills a white man, it's murder.

If a black man kills a white man, or a white man kills a black man, it's murder... and if evidence can be found that the killer was a racist, it's a hate crime, which ramps up the sentence.

I am totally against the above. Why? Because they're not penalising the killer for an action, they're killing him for a point of view, flawed or no. Murder is illegal. Racism is not. Combining the two should not make it more illegal.

For that same reason, I am against the position that Elly Armour, Jane Hurshman, and Brian Vallée set forth.

Firstly, I'd like to say that the language used is blatant fearmongering and a complete sensationalist misrepresentation of the facts. "The War on Women" implies that men (or at least some men) have joined together in an attempt to make war on women. There is a monumental difference between isolated cases of domestic violence and a military campaign against a specific gender.

Similarly, the phrases "outrage," "slaughter," the entire sentence "From time to time, they may attract a spate of publicity as the result of a high profile trial or an inquest that will likely conclude that society let them down once again and recommend changes to prevent future deaths, though these recommendations will be mostly ignored," and the comparison of aforementioned isolated cases of domestic violence to a terrorist cell are laughably obvious attempts to generate shock value.

In the midst of this onslaught of weasel words and clear disrespect for factual accuracy, the appeal to "look at the raw numbers" feels ridiculously misplaced.

Using this precedent, I could make a case against the NRA, citing hunting accident statistics and accusing them of a conspiracy against hunters and rural Americans. Or I could make a similarly biased, yellow-journalism case against George Bush... except that THEN I'd be reprimanded by the conservatives, wouldn't I? 'Twould give them another reason to complain about so-called "liberal media bias." As long as you're politically correct, facts don't matter, but otherwise, goodbye, credibility.

But I'm waxing bitter. Let's move on to the actual points.

Some of these are valid, logical, debatable points, such as the hardnose 25 years no-parole sentencing for murder of an "intimate partner" - I'll take that to mean spouse (on a semi-related note, I'm all for gay marriage). But some, such as making laws gender-specific, are ridiculous. That's like saying "Violence laws must be race-specific, not race-neutral, because by a wide margin white people are the ones who end up in the hospital or in the grave." I have no idea whether that's true or not, but either way it certainly doesn't justify the harsher punishment of different races for equal crimes.

In fact, it runs parallel to the beliefs of some so-called "feminists" who are not out for gender equality so much as female dominance. Example: some women like to be treated in every way exactly like the equal of a male (commendable)... as long as the guy pays for them, protects them, holds the door open, is disproportionately patient towards them, etc. (unfortunately, in actuality I'm one of the guys who ends up willingly perpetuating this discontinuity).

Several of these also allow for potential abuse by women enjoying this sexist (against males) setup, much like modern divorce courts (or like sexual harassment laws, or like the girls who like to be treated like an equal as long as guys still give them all the same perks as before).

Susie
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:44 pm

The War on Woman

Post #3

Post by Susie »

First of all DEATH BY ACCIDENT, is not MURDER. NOR IS the KILLING of another when a person is so mentally ill they have no conscience idea of right and wrong when it comes to taking another persons life. THAT is called REALLY GROSS and TOTAL DISREGARD for HUMAN LIFE THIS is a person with absolutely NO CONSCIENCE and they therefore HAVE NO REGARD for LIFE OF ANYONE INCLUDING their own THIS then is a person that is TOTALLY DEVOID OF ANY mentality of DECENCY AND there MIND is GONE . HAVING no conscience ONLY EVIL WICKNESS and therefore ALL EVIL AND WICKEDNESS is DESERVING OF DEATH. all other MURDERERS must be JUDGED on the reason they killed someone in the first place. ACCIDENTLLY DOES NOT DESERVE DEATH NOR A LIFE SENTANCE with no parole. Someone that harms another not meaning to kill them being angry and get into a fist fight and one ends up dead this must be tried evidence given on all circumstances so a fair and just punishment is given. FOR ALL CRIMES AGAINST ANOTHER HUMAN BEING CALLED MANKIND whether it be MALE OR FEMALE IS DESERVING OF PUNISHMENT OF SOME KIND> BAD behavior WHEN IT BRINGS DEATH AND HARM TO ANOTHER BODILY IS AND MUST BE PUNISHED. ONE can SAY MANY WICKED EVIL AND MEAN THINGS . BUT when it comes to PHYSICAL INJURY well FORGET IT PUNISHMENT IS DUE. OF COURSE words can be said that are considered THREATS UPON ONES LIFE .. OR THREATS upon ONES person OF A CRININAL ACT . SUCH AS RAPE, OR some other CRIMINAL ACTION UPON ANY OTHER person. TRUTH IS TO TREAT ANYONE with DISRESPECT , BODILY HARM OF ANY KIND ON PURPOSE IS NOT A GOOD THING for anyone to be doing BUT GOOD LUCK IN stopping bad behavior in anyone that is male or female because mankind is NOT ALL THAT PERFECT HUH?? BUT CRIMES ARE CRIMES AND NOT ALL CRIMES deserve a FALT PUNISHMENT EVIDENCE MUST be GIVEN AND PROVEN AS TO the what why and when and how must be KNOWN.

MAKES for a COMPLICATED SITUATION TO MAKE A WRONG DONE AGAINST ANOTHER TO BE DEAT with JUSTLY AND FAIRLY FOR ALL IN ALL CASES AND ALL CRIMES COMMITTED . IS there a SOLOMON IN THE WORLD TODAY??? I have yet to find anyone that had HIS WISDOM..

HATE CRIMES is the death nell to any fair justice if fair justice could be or ever is to be a reality. FOR HATE CRIMES JUST AS it has been said already HATE ING ANYONE OR ANYTHING IS A CHOICE FOR ANY INDVIDUAL TO DO. I CAN HATE ABORTION AND CRIME . YET ABORTIION AND CRIME IS SOMETHING I MYSELF COULD someday be guilty of. ACTUALLY PERFORMING AND DOING THE ACT OF ABORTION OR SYEALING OR MURDERING OR BEATING SOMEONE UP PHYSICALLY DOES COLOR OR SEX MALES OR FEMALES FAT OR SKINNY AND JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE OF A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE??? NO MATTER I still have no right to murder a LIVING BREATHING CHILD IN A WOMAN WOMB GODS INCUBATER FOR LIFE. THAT IS NOT DEAD BUT LIVING. I HAVE NO RIGHT TO MURDER SOMEONE just because THEY HAVE SODOMITE SEX WITH THE SAME SEX. NOR because they are WHITE BLACK RED OR ANY COLOR INBETWEEN, NOR BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THEN I DO . I DO HOWEVER HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PROTECT MY FAMILY MY RELATIC VES OR MYSELF IF SOMEONE IS THREATING DEATH TO ANY OR ALL OF MY FAMILY. BEING AN AMERICAN THIS GIVES ME THIS FREEDOM TO PROTECT MY FAMILY THAT IS THREATENED BY ANYONE . IS there anyone in here that believes they have an enemy that wants them DEAD ????? NOT LIKELY AS ONE INDIVIDUAL WANTING ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL DEAD yet ALL FREEDOM LOVERS HAVE AN ENEMY ... anyone that does not like THE FREEDOM OF AMERICANS FREEDOMS HATE AMERICANS, along with anyone that LOVES FREEDOM OF the people BY the PEOPLE CALLED FREEDOM PEOPLE THAT ALLOW PUBLIC VOTEING OF OUR GOVERNING OFFICIALS.. THAT PROMISE TAKING AN OATH TO PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA>>> WE ARE CALLED AMERICANS> ONE PEOPLE NATION UNDER GOD AND WE TESTIFY OF OUR FAITH AND THAT FAITH IS EVIDENT ALL OVER OUR CAPITAL IN WASHINGTON DC. AND IN ALL THE STATES THAT MAKE UP THIS USA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA> WE ALL MAY HAVE A PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL ENEMY AGAINST US THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE US GONE EVEN SOME MAY WANT TO KILL US CALLED MURDER> BUT NOT ALL AMERICANS HAVE THAT PROBLEM. YET ALL AMERICA HAS THAT PROBLEM WHY??????? WHO HATES US ?? AS AMERICANS THE WESTERN WORLD THE CHRISTIAN NATION OF GOD?? AND OUR SAVIOR CHRIST JESUS?? ANYONE KNOW who the enemy of THE STATES IS> OF PEOPLE THAT FIGHT TO KEEP THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP RIGHT TO SPEAK RIGHT TO DESCENT PEACABLY, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. WITHOUT ANY THREAT OF BEING JAILED OR DISAPPEAR AND NONE KNOW what happened to them. BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE CALLED THEIR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?? BETTER THANK GOD FOR OUR RIGHTS AND OUR FREEDOMS WE HAVE HAD AND PRAY FOR ALL THE MILITARY THAT IS FIGHTING TO HELP ANOTHER PEOPLE HAVE THE FREEDOM WE HAVE KNOWN BECAUSE OF A GOVERNMENT THAT STOOD UP AND SAID ENOUGH IS ENOUGH THEY AFTER ALL DID VOW TO PROTECT WE WHOM ARE CALLED AMERICAN CITIZENS... WHEN TWO VERY TALL BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY JUST ONE CITY OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... HARBOR WHERE THE STATUE OF MISS LIBERTY YET STANDS WELCOMING ALL THAT COME INTO THAT HARBOR ON SHIPS. YET TWO MORE PLANES WITH THE SAME KIND THAT WAS HEADEED FOR OUR MILTARY HEADQUARTERS AND MADE IT'S DESTINATION. ANOTHER HEADED for POSSIBLY OUR CONGRESSIONAL BUILDINGSBUT BECAUSE OF VERY BRAVE MEN AND WOMAN OF MANY DIVERSEPOSSIBLE LANGUAGES COLORS AND PEOPLES> DIED RATHER THEN ALLOW THE HIGHJACKERS TO REACH THEIR DESTINATION> GIVING LIVES THEY WOULD SURELY HAVE HAD TAKEN ALONG WITH OUR GOVERNING OFFICIALS> THAT HAVE VOWED TO PROTECT THESE UNITED STATES AND IT'S CITIZENS..

FOR all of you that were patient enough to read this post in it's totality. I REALLY PRAY YOU will reread it with great mind thinking about what has actually been said and how much reality and truth is within this post.. IF you do YOU shall be much wiser and better for it. ONLY IF YOU CAN comprehend truth when you read it and can comprehend it EVEN if it is written in capital letters for WOPRDS ARE WORDS what makes the difference is when they are spoken are they pretty close to the truth as truth can be truth . CHRISTIAN is REALITY GOSPEL IS REALITY HOLY BIBLE IS REALITY AND MANKIND IS REALITY so is THE HEAVENS and the EARTH and DARWIN WAS A LIAR> CHRIST JESUS WE would bnever have to name if the GOSPEL HOLY BIBLE HAD NEVER BEEN GIVEN TO MANKIND CALLED OUR LORD AND SAVIORS INSPIRED WRITTEN WORD OF whom .. DID MAN CREATE THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH I don't believe I have ever read anywhere been taught or known that IN THE BEGINNING MAN CREATED.. no I have read heard and known that IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED.......... not man.

WHOM would really like to get rid of the HOLY BIBLE GOSPEL CHRISTIANITY BELIEF OF ALL FAITHFUL BELIEVERS IN A MAN CALLED JESUS the FIRST of the RESURRECTION CHRIST JESUS... and TRADE IT for the QUARAN OF MOHAMMAND...

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #4

Post by McCulloch »

Pha7e wrote:If a black man kills a black man, or a white man kills a white man, it's murder.

If a black man kills a white man, or a white man kills a black man, it's murder... and if evidence can be found that the killer was a racist, it's a hate crime, which ramps up the sentence.

I am totally against the above. Why? Because they're not penalizing the killer for an action, they're killing him for a point of view, flawed or no. Murder is illegal. Racism is not. Combining the two should not make it more illegal.
Taking action based on racism is illegal. If you, for instance, refuse to employ or serve a person, based solely on the basis of race, it is illegal. Therefore, a crime based on, or motivated by racism is more of a crime.
Pha7e wrote:Firstly, I'd like to say that the language used is blatant fearmongering and a complete sensationalist misrepresentation of the facts. "The War on Women" implies that men (or at least some men) have joined together in an attempt to make war on women. There is a monumental difference between isolated cases of domestic violence and a military campaign against a specific gender.
I'll admit it is a metaphor, just as the war on drugs. There is a certain complicity, when men do not take a stand when there buddies denigrate women. The sheer numbers and the incredible imbalance of domestic violence against women cannot be explained as simply isolated cases of violence.
Pha7e wrote:Some of these are valid, logical, debatable points, such as the hardnose 25 years no-parole sentencing for murder of an "intimate partner" - I'll take that to mean spouse (on a semi-related note, I'm all for gay marriage). But some, such as making laws gender-specific, are ridiculous. That's like saying "Violence laws must be race-specific, not race-neutral, because by a wide margin white people are the ones who end up in the hospital or in the grave." I have no idea whether that's true or not, but either way it certainly doesn't justify the harsher punishment of different races for equal crimes.
I, myself, find that particular recommendation the hardest to swallow. I would be content to legally recognize domestic violence as a breach of trust and worthy of special treatment like child abuse.
Pha7e wrote:In fact, it runs parallel to the beliefs of some so-called "feminists" who are not out for gender equality so much as female dominance. Example: some women like to be treated in every way exactly like the equal of a male (commendable)... as long as the guy pays for them, protects them, holds the door open, is disproportionately patient towards them, etc. (unfortunately, in actuality I'm one of the guys who ends up willingly perpetuating this discontinuity).
Would there be so much wrong with female dominance for a change?
Pha7e wrote:Several of these also allow for potential abuse by women enjoying this sexist (against males) setup, much like modern divorce courts (or like sexual harassment laws, or like the girls who like to be treated like an equal as long as guys still give them all the same perks as before).
Yeah, I know. There are a lot of women who bruise themselves, break bones, live in shelters, quit their jobs and relocate, just to get even with husbands they don't like.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #5

Post by achilles12604 »

I have several trains of thought on this matter. However, understand that MY views are extremely slanted due to my work.

1) The "penalties" for domestic violence are silly. Stamping DV onto a case doesn't really change the outcome of the sentence. In general, it makes no difference if you punch another guy in a bar fight or if you beat your wife at home. In my mind this is not right. DV should be an aggravator with regards to sentencing. It does change the speed of the case however this is mostly to stop the huge amounts of refusal to prosecute by women who once given a few days, decide that they love the guy and then refuse to press charges. Which leads me to my second (and much larger) soap box.


2) A small part of me feels that the women who stay in a relationship with an abuser, are simply getting what they deserve. If I touch a stove, I get burned. If I touch a stove twice I get burned twice. If I touch a stove everyday for 3 years, . . . guess what? I get burned every day for 3 years.

If these women are so clouded by emotions that they are unable to see this simple truth, then like myself touching the stove, perhaps I am simply getting the natural result of my stupid actions.

I have never, and WILL NEVER understand why women stay. I just don't get it. While (like I said in point 1) I do think more should be done to punish and separate the abuser (gender neutral because being specific would cause a ton more problems), I can't help but think that they are simply reaping the results of their decision to stay. . .


Now this leads me to my third point.

3) for those women who DO leave and then are followed by the abuser, I think there should be a HUGE jump in sentencing. I am all for cruel and unusual punishment in these cases. The standard sentence for someone who violates a restraining order is something like 90 days which is usually run concurrent (meaning that there is no penalty really). This pisses me off. If the women is actually trying to get away and is not lumped into my point #2, and she is followed through life by this guy, I would not be opposed to upping the sentence to 10-20 years in prison. This of course would cause more people to be in prison for longer, which in turn ups taxes. . . But that is a whole different discussion for which I have equally outrageous soap boxes.



ARRGGG. When it comes to criminal behavior and "the system" I (although I am part of the system) firmly believe that our system of "justice" :lol: has totally and completely failed.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #6

Post by McCulloch »

achilles12604 wrote:I have several trains of thought on this matter. However, understand that MY views are extremely slanted due to my work.

1) The "penalties" for domestic violence are silly. Stamping DV onto a case doesn't really change the outcome of the sentence. In general, it makes no difference if you punch another guy in a bar fight or if you beat your wife at home. In my mind this is not right. DV should be an aggravator with regards to sentencing. It does change the speed of the case however this is mostly to stop the huge amounts of refusal to prosecute by women who once given a few days, decide that they love the guy and then refuse to press charges. Which leads me to my second (and much larger) soap box.
A domestic relationship is different from the relationship that you have with some guy in a bar. In a domestic relationship there is a greater level of trust and mutual dependence. So, just as a therapist who abuses his relationship with a patient is judged by a different standard than a stranger, so a domestic partner should be held to a different standard than a stranger.
achilles12604 wrote:2) A small part of me feels that the women who stay in a relationship with an abuser, are simply getting what they deserve. If I touch a stove, I get burned. If I touch a stove twice I get burned twice. If I touch a stove everyday for 3 years, . . . guess what? I get burned every day for 3 years.

If these women are so clouded by emotions that they are unable to see this simple truth, then like myself touching the stove, perhaps I am simply getting the natural result of my stupid actions.

I have never, and WILL NEVER understand why women stay. I just don't get it. While (like I said in point 1) I do think more should be done to punish and separate the abuser (gender neutral because being specific would cause a ton more problems), I can't help but think that they are simply reaping the results of their decision to stay. . .
I hope that you are wrong when you say that you will never understand these women. You really should make an effort to try to understand their plight. There are many factors in play, their own upbringing, sense of self-worth, societal pressures, economic pressures, family, intimidation, a feeling of helplessness, abandoned by a system which should be there to help. If you have already decided that you will not understand them, then your indifference makes you ineligible to speak to their situation.

achilles12604 wrote:Now this leads me to my third point.

3) for those women who DO leave and then are followed by the abuser, I think there should be a HUGE jump in sentencing. I am all for cruel and unusual punishment in these cases. The standard sentence for someone who violates a restraining order is something like 90 days which is usually run concurrent (meaning that there is no penalty really). This pisses me off. If the women is actually trying to get away and is not lumped into my point #2, and she is followed through life by this guy, I would not be opposed to upping the sentence to 10-20 years in prison. This of course would cause more people to be in prison for longer, which in turn ups taxes. . . But that is a whole different discussion for which I have equally outrageous soap boxes.
Here, at least, we agree. When a woman seeks help, that help should be forthcoming and effective. Restraining orders should be enforced. Men with histories of abuse should be monitored. Punishments for violations should be swift, effective and escalate with repeat offenses.
achilles12604 wrote:ARRGGG. When it comes to criminal behavior and "the system" I (although I am part of the system) firmly believe that our system of "justice" :lol: has totally and completely failed.
Well, yeah. But let's try to find ways, even small incremental ways, to improve it. I think that a really good first step would be to listen, really listen, to the women who this system is failing. They more than anyone else know what is wrong.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #7

Post by achilles12604 »

McCulloch wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:I have several trains of thought on this matter. However, understand that MY views are extremely slanted due to my work.

1) The "penalties" for domestic violence are silly. Stamping DV onto a case doesn't really change the outcome of the sentence. In general, it makes no difference if you punch another guy in a bar fight or if you beat your wife at home. In my mind this is not right. DV should be an aggravator with regards to sentencing. It does change the speed of the case however this is mostly to stop the huge amounts of refusal to prosecute by women who once given a few days, decide that they love the guy and then refuse to press charges. Which leads me to my second (and much larger) soap box.
A domestic relationship is different from the relationship that you have with some guy in a bar. In a domestic relationship there is a greater level of trust and mutual dependence. So, just as a therapist who abuses his relationship with a patient is judged by a different standard than a stranger, so a domestic partner should be held to a different standard than a stranger.
achilles12604 wrote:2) A small part of me feels that the women who stay in a relationship with an abuser, are simply getting what they deserve. If I touch a stove, I get burned. If I touch a stove twice I get burned twice. If I touch a stove everyday for 3 years, . . . guess what? I get burned every day for 3 years.

If these women are so clouded by emotions that they are unable to see this simple truth, then like myself touching the stove, perhaps I am simply getting the natural result of my stupid actions.

I have never, and WILL NEVER understand why women stay. I just don't get it. While (like I said in point 1) I do think more should be done to punish and separate the abuser (gender neutral because being specific would cause a ton more problems), I can't help but think that they are simply reaping the results of their decision to stay. . .
I hope that you are wrong when you say that you will never understand these women. You really should make an effort to try to understand their plight. There are many factors in play, their own upbringing, sense of self-worth, societal pressures, economic pressures, family, intimidation, a feeling of helplessness, abandoned by a system which should be there to help. If you have already decided that you will not understand them, then your indifference makes you ineligible to speak to their situation.

achilles12604 wrote:Now this leads me to my third point.

3) for those women who DO leave and then are followed by the abuser, I think there should be a HUGE jump in sentencing. I am all for cruel and unusual punishment in these cases. The standard sentence for someone who violates a restraining order is something like 90 days which is usually run concurrent (meaning that there is no penalty really). This pisses me off. If the women is actually trying to get away and is not lumped into my point #2, and she is followed through life by this guy, I would not be opposed to upping the sentence to 10-20 years in prison. This of course would cause more people to be in prison for longer, which in turn ups taxes. . . But that is a whole different discussion for which I have equally outrageous soap boxes.
Here, at least, we agree. When a woman seeks help, that help should be forthcoming and effective. Restraining orders should be enforced. Men with histories of abuse should be monitored. Punishments for violations should be swift, effective and escalate with repeat offenses.
achilles12604 wrote:ARRGGG. When it comes to criminal behavior and "the system" I (although I am part of the system) firmly believe that our system of "justice" :lol: has totally and completely failed.
Well, yeah. But let's try to find ways, even small incremental ways, to improve it. I think that a really good first step would be to listen, really listen, to the women who this system is failing. They more than anyone else know what is wrong.


Well we agree on the punishment aspects.

We seem to not necessarily disagree but certainly come from two different places concerning the women involved. By your post I understand you view them as 100% victims.

I see them as 90% victims, 10% accomplice. And of the 90% victim, 1/4 of that is simply being a victim of low self esteem and poor background.

I have known several of these women. Many of them refuse to leave. In fact they often attack US when they call us. I have read MANY reports of these women who call us, and then when they realize that we are going to arrest their guy, they beg, plead, and even attack us in an attempt to free this loser.

You are entitled to your view. But I have had a large amount of experience with these people. The system is not going to fix them. The only way to fix their mentalities is from the HOME. Self-esteem, decision making, and other things our parents teach us, we take for granted. Without them, we see a crumbling society.


Interesting that religion is a good source for many of these values.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Re: The War on Women

Post #8

Post by Confused »

Before I respond, keep in mind that I have some very odd views on this subject.

McCulloch wrote:
Compare the raw numbers. In the same seven year period when 4,588 U.S. soldiers and police officers were killed by hostiles or by accident, more than 8,000 women, nearly twice as many, were shot, stabbed, strangled or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives.
Not trying to diminish the battered womens syndrome etc... But they have the choice to leave. I realize the emotional abuse that makes them feel trapped. I realize that many of them don't think they can support themselves without their partner. But if it is a choice between being beat or living in homeless shelters or on the streets, I would choose the latter and I don't understand anyone who wouldn't. Now, I understand that cases exist where the woman tried to get away and the man found her and still beat her to death. For the men who do this, I think harsher penalties should be enacted. But IMHO, if the woman doesn't try to escape, then she has made a choice to stay, regardless of what her reasons are.
McCulloch wrote: In the United States, it's conservatively estimated that in addition to the 1,200 to 1,300 women killed each year by intimate partners, another 5.3 million, age 18 and older are victims of non-lethal domestic abuse.
Based on those numbers, the violence costs the country more than $5.8 billion annually.
And why are we paying for others poor choices?


McCulloch wrote:Domestic violence laws must be gender specific, not gender neutral, because by a wide margin women are the ones who end up in the hospital or in the grave.
Sure, we want equal rights with men, but we want special laws for women? No, I don't agree.
McCulloch wrote:Domestic violence is such a breach of trust, it should be considered as serious a crime as attacking or murdering a police or corrections officer.
If you breach my trust, I leave. Plain and simple. Why should the taxpayers carry the bill of imprisonment because you're a jerk? (not you specifically)
McCulloch wrote:The penalty for murder of an intimate partner must be severe – 25 years without parole. Otherwise, what's to deter a batterer who sees news stories about men who kill their spouses being charged with manslaughter or second-degree murder and sentenced to five, 10, or 15 years, of which they will likely serve only a third?
Hmm, choice between keeping a child molester/murderer in prison for 60 years or a partner who killed their partner in jail for 60 years. Sorry, child molester wins. The fact is, prison resources are limited. IMHO, resources should be used for future generations protection before those who are already adults.
McCulloch wrote:Whenever possible, the abuser should be removed from the home – to jail or a halfway house – instead of forcing women and children to hide out in shelters.
Yes, the abuser should be removed.
McCulloch wrote:An abuser confined to a halfway house would be required to wear an electronic ankle bracelet and undergo counseling until the courts were through with him.
Have to disagree. My taxes should pay for some idiot to get counseling on how to treat a woman? No.
McCulloch wrote:A battered spouse, meanwhile, would be offered counselling and would be supplied with a form of electronic "panic button" that directly alerts police if she suddenly comes under threat.
How about we just teach them how to say no and leave. If they can't, then dial 911. Women are raped by strangers all the time. They have no cushion like you propose to give to a woman who is in an abusive relationship and gets a publicly funded panic button.
McCulloch wrote:A batterer breaking the terms of bail or court orders against him would be arrested on a new (and serious) breach of trust charge. Break bail, you go to jail – no second chances. Second chances have proved deadly for too many women and their children.
In a utopian world, this sounds great. In the real world, we need to prioritize based on the limited resources we have. Why not just shoot the repeat offenders in the head?
McCulloch wrote:Create a category of crime called femicide with penalties the same as those for first-degree murder (25 years without parole).
Sure, we don't want equal rights. We want special rights that come with our very own category. No, sorry. Tell me, does a stranger who rapes a woman and perhaps even kills her fall under this category of "femicide"
McCulloch wrote:Whenever there is a history of abuse and a woman is killed by her male intimate, the charge should be femicide, and the provocation defense ("she left me and I just lost it") should not be allowed.
Again, I have to disagree. It is murder. The provocation defense is a cop out. But to make it specific only to women further spread the gap on the fight for equality.
McCulloch wrote:Establish halfway houses for batterers so women and children aren't the ones forced to leave the home.
Again, resources are so limited. Would you rather have halfway houses for the mentally/emotionally/physically impaired or for some men with domination issues?
McCulloch wrote:Implement legislation (with adequate funding) for universal daycare and provide women with opportunities to earn income and escape a battering spouse.
Ok, so because she doesn't have the courage to leave him, we should pay for her daycare and education to obtain employment? This is fair to those of us who are strong enough to walk away how?
McCulloch wrote:Provide sustained funding for shelters and second-stage (medium-term) housing, with counseling services and income support so women who flee are not forced to return to a batterer for economic reasons.
I think I already addressed this one.
McCulloch wrote:Restore full funding for Status of Women Canada and other women's advocacy groups.
Not familiar with but what groups would you advocate cutting the funding from in order to accomplish what you suggest?
McCulloch wrote:In cases of domestic violence, transfer jurisdiction for restraining and protection orders from civil courts to criminal courts, with mandatory incarceration when orders are breached.
Agreed.
McCulloch wrote:When restraining or protection orders are in place, make it an offense for a private investigator or other third party, aware of such orders, to find, or seek to find – on behalf of an abuser – an estranged intimate partner who is in hiding or a shelter.
Agreed
McCulloch wrote:Implement full registration and licensing of all firearms.

Do we not already do this?
McCulloch wrote:Ensure adequate long-term funding of the front-line services needed by aboriginal women to escape violence.
Again, there shouldn't be any long term needed IMHO.



In summary, we, as women, have fought for equal rights. We can't expect them to give them to us, then have us turn around and say we can't handle them. We have a choice in all matters pertaining to us. The old adage comes to mind "where there is a will, there is a way". It is up to us to step up to the plate and say "NO MORE". Not the government. Not the state. But each one of us. The penalties for murdering an intimate partner should be the equivalent of any murder. Tell me, is the murdering of an intimate spouse any worse than the murdering of a stranger? The result is the same. Forget the trust issue that is broken in the case of the relationship. A woman is murdered, period.


OK, so now that I will be on the hate list for every feminist organization, feel free to tear me apart.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #9

Post by Confused »

So, after my harsh response with no solutions offered, I did some thinking. Perhaps we should enact a law where anyone who physically harms their partner, be they male or female, should have to be registered similar to the national sex offender registry. And perhaps I was a bit rash on rejecting the counseling. I could understand counseling similar to that given by sex offenders.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #10

Post by achilles12604 »

Confused wrote:So, after my harsh response with no solutions offered, I did some thinking. Perhaps we should enact a law where anyone who physically harms their partner, be they male or female, should have to be registered similar to the national sex offender registry. And perhaps I was a bit rash on rejecting the counseling. I could understand counseling similar to that given by sex offenders.
THIS . . . is actually a great idea. I am going to write it as a suggestion to congress right now online.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

Post Reply