h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"since women are at considerably greater risk than men of spousal violence, it would seem sensible for this to attract harsher penalties."

Again,

Why should a stranger who punches you in the face repeatedly get a lesser sentence than a partner who does exactly the same thing?

Or... are you suggesting that only MALE perpetrators of domestic violence should get harsher penalties? Because if you are, don't worry, that's already how it works. Domestic violence against male victims is regarded by women as a joke, if they allow that it exists at all. One of the most sickening things I've ever seen on television was a heartrending story told by a man whose wife had, while he slept, premeditatedly boiled some wax in a saucepan and poured it onto his genitals. The horrific injuries he sustained, and the pain he endured and continues to endure, can barely be imagined. He told this to the audience of a daytime TV show, an audience which inevitably consisted mostly of women. Their response? They were audibly giggling. They'd all been properly shocked and outraged when the female victims on earlier had told their stories. But this man had to face four or five dozen women openly amused at his violent mutilation. Double standard for domestic violence - hell yeah, it exists, but you can be damn sure it's not women who are the victims. It's not the 1970s any more.

SoRB

Because we give out harder punishments to target particular risks.

In the case of the hate crimes I've described, the idea is to remove risks dispprortionately faced by certain groups. I was simply giving an example of how we might extend this if we decided that women were at a particular risk and chose to do something about it. In this model, the assumption is that targetted penalties can deter and hence reduce certain crimes.

The alternate model you're suggesting, SoRB, is one in which the degree of punishment is determined according to the harm to a victim. That has something going for it - and is indeed is an important part of any sentencing formula. But consider a crime such as driving while under the influence. This is a 'victimless' crime in that nobody is necessarily hurt, so punishment clearly can't be according to harm. Instead, we punish to deter a risk of harm.

Sentencing policy 101. These things are maybe a tad less straightforward than you imagine. You do seem to be happier with hard science than with real-life issues concerning real-life people.

>> but you can be damn sure it's not women who are the victims.

Now that displays an outstanding degree of ignorance. Go read up on it, dear boy. Then come back and tell me whether or not women are disproportionately the victims of domestic abuse once you have an *informed* view.

(And the above should in no way be taken to imply that domestic violence against men is being taken seriously enough)

btw - by 'informed view', I don't mean opinions formed from watching Trisha.

"Go read up on it, dear boy. Then come back and tell me whether or not women are disproportionately the victims of domestic abuse once you have an *informed* view"

...

http://patschef.blogspot.com/2004/05/women-just-as-likely-to-be-abusive.html

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/davis.htm

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/charalambous/2004/charalambous111204.htm

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1202rolph.html

From the latter:

"the only large scale domestic violence study carried out in the UK (HOS 191) was in 1996. That study found that 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women suffer domestic violence. "

Thank you for inviting me to prove myself right.

Again.

SoRB

Wow - that last piece in particular is startling.

typical male reaction (the same as for male rape) when it happens to women, so what? as soon as it happens to men: oh my, lock her up and throw away the key!

You've been astounding me lately. Interestingly, you drew your conclusion before 'researching' - I can dignify a little light googling with the word. I suggest you question the provenance of secondary sources a little more closely, and maybe seek out a wider range. Granted, you will discover that violence against men is more common than previously supposed, and there is, as always in social science, some conflicting data. Nevertheless, women remain disproportionately the victims.

In any case, I'm not sure what you're defending? Even if we were to accept that domestic violence were perpetrated by women as often as by men (It isn't - but let's suppose), my original point was that the domestic nature of the violence is not given particular weight in sentencing. Indeed, to some extent it's used as a mitigating factor. Heavier sentencing would tend to be given for an attack on a random stranger than on a spouse. This is no surprise, considering that spousal violence has only relatively recently come within the remit of law.


Tangentially...violent crime, and crime in general, is committed vastly disproportionately by men. Women, on the other hand, tend to get stiffer sentences for lesser crimes. They are deemed to have deviated to a greater extent from the woman's 'natural' role. I recommend various books by Pat Carlen, and the excellent, highly readable 'Eve Was Framed' by Helena Kennedy.

"Nevertheless, women remain disproportionately the victims."
- says Edward

"In fact, the only large scale domestic violence study carried out in the UK (HOS 191) was in 1996. That study found that 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women suffer domestic violence."
- says The Study

And you're the one throwing insults at SoRB?

Yes, I saw that quote. It is widely quoted in various anti-feminist and right-leaning sites. It not only misrepresents the study but is inaccurate in its assertion that this has been the only large scale study. Speaking of which...ifeminists on which it was quoted (the same material is C&P's in many web sources) appears to be a vehicle of Wendy McElroy - not a well respected academic but a known right-libertarian figure. (Doesn't mean she's wrong - but we should be aware of our sources).

Leaving that aside...I'm not sure it's relevant to accuse anyone of insulting SoRB. Yes - I am being somewhat impolite - but this is widely known to be his preferred mode of discourse, so I've always assumed he enjoys it.

Still - I'm sorry now that I raised the issue of domestic violence. Maybe it merits a thread of its own...but it's a side issue to my original point, which is that there is a case for treating crimes differently, irrespective of their physical effects. Perhaps not a conclusive case - there is always room for disagreement. Nevertheless, that is what we've chosen to do in this country, and not for no reason at all.



(Oh gawd - someone's bound to say they never voted for it. Am I going to have to give a preemptive clarification regarding representative democracy?)

SoRB, you've been noticeably quiet on the topic of a man chucking a nailbomb into a gay bar targetting gay people. Do you still maintain that the attack didn't target gay people, who are therefore murdered for being gay, because some straight people were killed too?

Plus, one has less risk of being nailbombed by a violent homophobe if not either gay and/or in a gay bar. Hence variable sentencing.

Ed, where are your counter examples? They don't have to be links, but all you've done so far is say SoRB's references are "wrong".

They're in books and reports. They don't link easily.

While part of me would like to further your education...I can't be bothered. You may wish to conclude from this that I've presented no evidence of being moire widely read on this topic than someone who's done a little googling, and you're entitled to do so. But hey ho. As I've said, it's a distraction from my original point which was regarding sentencing policy.

Still...I'm sure you're capable yourself of googling more widely than SoRB, and I'm reasonably certain you'll dig something up.

I could post any number of links to sites that argue that the moon landing was faked, that the Twin Towers was a Zionist conspiracy, and that the earth is 10,000 years old. But it wouldn't make it so.

I've done some light googling of my own, and found the information below. You pays your money and you takes your choice, but there's no doubt in my mind which sources are the more reliable. Who would take blogs and personal websites over government figures and one of the foremost newsgathering organisations in the world?

Figures for domestic violence vary because of different ways of counting and different definitions. Does 'DV' mean just between couples, or include violence against children and by children against parents, does it include 'elder abuse' and so on. For the record, I think that domestic violence against men is under-reported and tolerated far too much in popular culture, but to argue that women are not disproportionately the victims of domestic violence just flies in the face of the facts.

-----

UK Home Office Figures:

"Although domestic violence is chronically under reported, research estimates that it:

* accounts for 16% of all violent crime (Source: Crime in England and Wales 04/05 report)
* has more repeat victims than any other crime (on average there will have been 35 assaults before a victim calls the police)
* costs in excess of £23bn a year
* claims the lives of two women each week and 30 men per year
* is the largest cause of morbidity worldwide in women aged 19-44, greater than war, cancer or motor vehicle accidents
* will affect 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men in their lifetime

Whatever form it takes, domestic violence is rarely a one-off incident. More usually it's a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviour through which the abuser seeks power over their victim. Domestic violence occurs across society, regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, wealth and geography. The figures show, however, that it consists mainly of violence by men against women. "
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/domestic-violence/
-----

"The police in the UK receive, on average, one call a minute from someone asking for help in a domestic violence incident. Yet this figure — over 500,000 incidents a year — is probably only a third of the domestic violence that actually happens. In four out of every five incidents the victims are women, and more than half of victims of domestic violence are victimised more than once. "

http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=57&category=factsheets

------

From the BBC....

* 1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence at some point in their lives.
* At any one given time between 1 in 9 women will be experiencing domestic violence.
* 2 women a week are murdered by a current or former partner.
* Over 45,000 women and children stay in a refuge each year.
* 1 in 6 homeless families are escaping domestic violence.
* UK police attend a domestic violence incident every minute of every hour of every day.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/domestic_violence/whathh_index11.shtml

----

More from the BBC

"According to the latest figures from the Home Office*, out of an estimated 635,000 incidents of domestic violence in 2001/2 in England and Wales - 81 per cent of the victims were women and 19 per cent were men.

*(Crime in England and Wales, Home Office, July 2002)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/domestic_violence/whyhh_index.shtml

-----

And more... this time on DV against men

"Figures on the extent of male victims vary considerably so it's difficult to state with any accuracy the true extent. However, the 2001/02 British Crime Survey (BCS) found 19 per cent of domestic violence incidents were reported to be male victims, with just under half of these having a female abuser."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/domestic_violence/menhh_index.shtml

"Yes - I am being somewhat impolite - but this is widely known to be his preferred mode of discourse, so I've always assumed he enjoys it."

I love this line.

TRiG.

This is something I posted elsewhere, hastily edited for reposting here.

What is hate crime legislation? It says basically that criminal acts motivated by hate should receive tougher sentences. Note that the acts so punished are crimes anyway, under normal legislation. So muggings, burglaries, vandalism, and other such acts for which you may receive punishment of law, may receive tougher sentences if they are shown to be motivated by hate.

Hate speech may also be incorporated into hate crime legislation.

Now that we've clarified what hate crime legislation is, let's talk about whether it is valid. The point has been made earlier that such legislation criminalises thought. The same attack can receive a tougher sentence if the court perceives it to be motivated by hate. That's very odd, isn't it?

Yes, but there is another side to this argument. Picture yourself as a member of a despised minority: a minority by skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, ... whatever. Now, because your group is small and widely looked down on, you tend to form a close-knit cohesive bunch, and you follow with interest news and gossip about other members of your minority, even if you don't know them personally.

So, a member of your minority living not far from you, but whom you don't know personally, is viciously attacked only for being a member of that minority. The attack is motivated purely by hatred of that minority. The specific victim was merely representative. It might just as well have been one of your friends. It might just as well have been you.

How do you feel?

That is the reason for hate crime legislation. In a hate crime, there are far more victims than those who appear in the witness stand. A whole group feels hurt, frightened. There is an incalculable knock-on effect.

With so much more hurt, with so many more victims, it is only right that there should be a greater punishment for the attackers.

TRiG.

>>"Several people have tried to explain why gay men are not just ordinary 'members of the public'."

>I understand entirely. They're special wikkuw fwowers what must be pwotected fwom the west of us. Poor ikkle finks.

I don't understand that response at all. Do you believe that (a) gay men are in no extra danger of physical attack, harassment, and discrimination than straight men? Or (b) that they are in extra danger, but that you don't care?

>>"Several people have pointed that the Fire Brigade are not the Police and therefore have no business taking it on themselves to 'detect' crime."

>Oh, I agree. As I've already said, goofing off in this way should be punished. It's the degree of punishment, and its attendant publicity, that I disagree with.

Not being an expert on what's normal punishment in the Fire Brigade, I'm agnostic on whether their punishment was appropriate. I read in other sources that they were suspended for three months, which seems extraordinary to me. However, may I draw your attention (again) to the original article, which provides no reason for thinking that the publicity came from anywhere other than the Fire Brigade. This is *not* news because of a Stonewall or THT Press Release.

>>"Several people have pointed out that al fresco sex is (all other things being equal) a victimless crime if it's a crime at all."

>Much as I would love to endorse your hopelessly childish worldview, I can't let the phrase "if it's a crime at all" pass. There's no question here of "if it's a crime at all". Whether you like it or not, it IS a crime. Pretending it isn't suggest that it's not me that "has issues".

Yet another personal attack. Well done. Several people have expressed doubt that it is a crime, early in the thread. I've presumed all along that it is, and I'd be happy to concede the point now, having done a bit of googling. For the record, it wasn't me who suggested that you have "issues". Edward may think that of you, I couldn't possibly comment - I leave your posts to speak for themselves. If I have "issues" I can't think what they can possibly be, based on what I said there.

>>"Several people have argued that a society in which such snooping is seen as permissible is a pretty sick society."

>Again with the twisting of the argument. NOBODY, as far as I remember, has suggested that this snooping was "permissible". It was wrong. I've said that, explicitly, as have others. I've even commented on what I would think of as appropriate punishment. Why would I suggest punishment for something I consider permissible? You're simply lying here to support your side of the argument, and you're failing. WHERE, please, did *anyone* say that it was OK? Just one link, please, or admit you're a liar.

*You* regard snooping on people having sex in a secluded location where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy merely as "goofing off" - a prank to be punished by a fine of a packet of biscuits, or something similarly flippant. By your own admission you don't think it's serious. To repeat what I said earlier - if people were spying on me having sex outdoors in a secluded place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, my partner and I might be convicting a 'criminal offence', but in my mind (and I think the majority here agree), the greater moral offence is committed by the snoopers. Don't you think?

If you were 'interrupted' would you just laugh and say 'fair cop' to whoever took it upon themselves to disturb you? Or do you think that al fresco sex is such a serious crime that you would never commit it - in which case, fair enough, but I think it would put you in a minority.

>>"I've pointed out that there's no reason to think that the people who complained wanted publicity or wanted people disciplined."

>I invite you to suggest what outcome they imagined might result from making a complaint, then. Just how stupid are these people?

Here's one. That they're fined a packet of biscuits and their x box is taken away. Here's another. A quiet word is had, and it doesn't happen again. And by your own argument, they certainly had nothing to gain by drawing attention through publicity to what went on on the common.


>>"It was a complaint made through a legitimate intermediary"

>Again, I ask, why? Except of course I know the answer. Even these whiners don't have the brass neck to complain directly to the police that they were interrupted in the commission of a crime. So, not *that* stupid.

No, you don't know the answer. You just jump to conclusions based upon your own prejudices for which there is no evidence. Perhaps they didn't want to make it that official. Perhaps they're not open about their sexuality. Perhaps they thought the police wouldn't take it seriously. Perhaps many reasons. No evidence one way or the other.

>>"contrary to your earlier assertion that it was a vindictive politically-motivated act. Care to take that back?"

>Absolutely not.

Let me rephrase that, then. Any *evidence* that it was a vindictive politically motivated act?

>>it wasn't me who suggested that you have "issues". Edward may think that of you, I couldn't possibly comment

Well, yes. It was his vehemence that gave me that impression.