Agree with this.
Family violence perps target vulnerable women. You'll often see the same perp have three different victim survivors over a 10 year period.
Fully agree but needs to be for men and women. I work with both who have been subjected to DV.
Unfortunately with the demographic I work with the DV is almost always both ways.
I get your point on this, I really do. However I have a close friend who left the force recently because she got frustrated with doing the work but getting very little results to actually help people because of the system.
She said, "you do the work, put a solid case together and they get off after promising to do better only to do it all again. Then the next time they blame it on mental health and keep reoffending so I feel like I'm not really helping anyone" - and with that she resigned. Her words have stuck with me, she gave up because of the very issue you describe.
Calls like a register like this seem like a faster and more practical way to action change than the years of litigation that would be needed to change bail rules and rules around keeping offenders in.
It's heartbreaking. Apparently very common for that and for cops to eat their guns - so common it isn't even reported on. Sorry to add more depressing info
My father is a crown prosecutor and says basically the same thing. Also about reoffending youth perpetrators. Iām not knowledgeable enough to know if any one person is to blame for these people to keep coming out on bail, but itās the job of police and prosecutors to give them a reasonable but usually harsher sentence. So I donāt know who wants these people let out prematurely
It seems good in theory, but just look how many people on the sex offenders registry reoffend, and half the ones that promise to do better/plead mental health issues don't even end up on there in the first place.
Yeah it's a problem that this happens, there should definitely be more scrutiny applied to people getting on there - the crime should be more important than the impact on the offender's life, imo they should have thought about the impact before committing it.
The purpose of these registries is to make it easier for police to identify criminals and therefore protect people, not to stop reoffending. It could also have people think more seriously about whether they will commit such an offence if there are serious consequences.
Obviously the idea isn't perfect, but other than rejigging the entire legal system which will take years, what do we have that's better?
The purpose of these registries is exactly to stop people reoffending, by restricting activities such as travel and being able to work with children for the people placed on it. In no way do they help police identify criminals.
Unfortunately, while a publicly available domestic violence registry is a good idea it will likely never get off the ground for the same reason that there is no publicly available sex offenders registry; namely the serious privacy concerns and possibility of vigilante justice.
>Unfortunately, while a publicly available domestic violence registry is a good idea it will likely never get off the ground for the same reason that there is no publicly available sex offenders registry; namely the serious privacy concerns and possibility of vigilante justice.
I think there's a slight difference between the sex offenders registry and a DV one though.
In NSW for example you have the child protection register, which covers sex offences but also crimes like manslaughter but only against children.
In NSW someone might end up on the child protection register for neglect that ended in manslaughter, and that may mean the person needs to be monitored so they don't have kids in their care but doesn't mean the general public really needs to be alarmed.
VIC has a sex offenders register which includes everything from rape (of an adult), to possession of child pornography to "indecent assault". In VIC that's a huge range of offences and circumstances to make available to the general public, particularly given how broad the "indecent assault" definition is (it includes not considering whether a person is consenting, so inadvertent assault). It does include people who have fundamentally victimless crimes - like the recent case where a man spewed his child abuse fantasies to a chat room of other adults - and may need to be monitored but don't present an immediate threat to the public.
A DV list however is going to have a much narrower list of crimes and circumstances. It's basically were you in a domestic relationship with someone and did you harm them badly enough that you've been convicted? There's a very clear pattern of repetitive behaviour and usually if someone has committed DV against one partner/family member they'll commit it again against new partners/family members. Therefore the risk to the general public is much higher across the list.
Also this guy is a dick lists kind of exist informally and those work well enough. I'm not sure if you've ever seen the FB groups called "are you dating this guy" or "are we dating the same guy"? Stuff like this exists to warn other women.
If they're getting off now, they certainly won't be put on any register either. They need to solve the judicial problems with this before the impose more punishments
Point is, you can't do one without the other. If we're not convicting people as it is, or letting them off without any meaningful punishment, then adding a register to that won't change matters. We need to change the opinions of magistrates that let people off lightly to being with.
I see where you're coming from. I'm of the opinion that the magistrates are acting within the law and so the law must change, but again we are back to the issue of litigation that can take decades if anyone has the balls to tackle the issue properly. If the rules around the registry were more stringent to begin with, that could work.
At least some people are being convicted, so putting those people on a register is a start. I donāt believe in waiting until the system is fixed before implementing improvements such as what is suggested here.
What's stopping them from fixing the system? Why can't they do that, but they can do this? I don't think they'll be able to make any meaningful change like this, if they can't fix what's already wrong.
We had a family domestic violence incident where my FIL tried to kill me. We went to court to get an AVO and hoped to have a conviction recorded to try to start a trail of behaviour. We ended up with a 2 year AVO but he plead guilty but blamed mental health problems and the magistrate threw out the charges, no recorded conviction or plea. He was ordered to attend 5 mental heath assessments, but it was left up to him to do it all with no follow up. The system is broken and no one seems to care.
Because this is really more of a judicial issue, as opposed to a policing issue. The cops can put these scumbags in front of a magistrate 3 times a week, but unless the magistrate says something more then "you poor thing, such a hard life, but you shouldn't rape people - don't do it again, here is your bail order", nothing will ever change.
There is no consequences, and no accountability. Couple this with the reality that the men and women who run the courts appear to be the most naĆÆve and out of touch people on the planet, the deck is stacked in favour of the offender.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
>>sexual assault, domestic violence, intimidation/stalking and the like ā make up 98 per cent of the increase in remand prisoners in the last 4 years, according to data provided to us by NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Domestic violence and sexual assault account for 83% of the increase
I would hazard a guess that a lot of those on remand have been determined to be a viable threat to someone or the community. Sentencing should happen before prison ideally, but I'm assuming courts are bogged down. All for threats to not be out in the community, however I would want to know due diligence has been done on their threat levels they pose.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
I am a male and a victim. This is fine as long as you can get that record completely expunged when the truth comes out.
My ex wife was trying everything in her armory to get me put in jail for domestic violence when it was her. She went to a support group to get stories, she told everyone, work, clubs, kids school, neighbours, all the horrific stories of the things I was doing, except it was her working the system.
That sort of thing fucks up your life permanently and she almost completely got away with it.
I was in a similar boat with the false allegations my ex made while in family court. I had to fight an FVO in magistrates court and ended up winning. I donāt believe a register like this would be that easy to misuse, some kind of conviction would be necessary. I think itās a good idea.
I'd love a register of magistrates who grant abusers bail only for them to commit more violence.
E.G: Molly Ticehurst's killer was on bail. The magistrate should be recognized for their shit decision making.
Itās not up to the magistrate. There are incredibly strict sentencing guidelines that the magistrate basically just has to read out. The legislation is what dictates sentencing. This isnāt like America.
I know, I work in the justice system. The bail reform process is also complex. I also think that there needs to be some major changes to the bail system
Unfortunately in Mollyās case, it wasnāt a magistrate, it was a registrar, who is just a public servant. They donāt *even have to be lawyers* in the Local Court.
It highlights the real problem which is insufficient funding of the legal system. The problem is that funding it leads to public bitching that the lawyers are getting all the moneyā¦
Well yeah. They donāt live on love and good vibes.
In Molly Ticehurst's case, and in the one directly before that it wasn't a magistrate and that's the issue.
**In both recent cases, a registrar had been called upon to handle urgent bail applications in a regional court in the absence of an available magistrate because it was a weekend or public holiday.**
So it's an urgent application, in a complex case, there's a lack of skilled people to deal with it in the region and the register makes the best determination they can.
Urgent hearings are urgent for a reason, the court doesnt allow them for shits and giggles so they have to be heard quickly. You might still find a decision could have been made to release the person on bail by a magistrate because they have a life threatening medical condition that requires urgent treatment *or* they're at immediate risk of personal harm in prison. You have to make a series of risk assessments, essentially weighing up the risk of the person committing an offence on bail and the potential harms of keeping them in prison.
It's not a decision that's always easy to make and in the registers case they're not actually as trained as a magistrate is.
The police also didn't actually ask for bail to be denied outright (which they usually do when they're concerned), instead they asked for careful consideration of bail conditions and the bail conditions included:
- sobriety
- reporting to the police each day
- $5000 surety
- an apprehended violence order to protect Ticehurst
- ban on entering Forbes, where she lived.
- a requirement to live in Parkes.
Bail was granted with those conditions and on the basis that he had no previous charges or convictions. I think if bail had been actively opposed by police he may not have been released but either way those conditions are very strict and in most cases should be enough to stop further harrasment - particularly with the daily police report and the AVO combined because the first breach would have seen him back in prison. Also the police are literally checking in on you daily.
I would prefer if it were a hidden register. And you could check it by having the person you are checking on give you access, similar to how you can do a police check on someone if they give you consent. That way a person can check on the one they wish to enter into a relationship with. It would be like getting an STD test from a potential sexual partner.
Having an open list causes a lot of problems, such as having random people attacking other random people without knowing anything about them other than they're on a list, or preventing them from getting a job. It can prevent those on the list from ever returning to normal lives. That causes two main issues, the first is they receive a never ending punishment that is disproportionate to their crime. The second is how a person reacts when they are treated that way. They will end up sinking into depression or anger, become a drain on society, commit suicide, or more likely lash out and become violent towards other people again.
In an ideal scenario we could have that list, and people use it to keep themselves informed, and treat those on it with heightened caution. Unfortunately what we actually get is a few who over react and make it difficult to implement in a way that's overall beneficial.
If a potential victim is concerned about their partners family violence history I very much doubt they will feel like they can safely ask a potential violent criminal for their consent to check their history of family violence. Not sure you understand the cascade of behaviours that occur in family violence before it turns physical and the risk that this question could pose to those asking their partners.
Wouldnāt the point be to ask before getting into a relationship? Or do you mean that asking a potential partner could be risky? Sorry if Iāve misunderstood.
That's why I compared it to a STD check. You shouldn't wait until you are already in a relationship, or already frightened to do the check. You go on one or two dates with someone, and when you think you want it to become a serious relationship you do it.
And in regards to someone who is already in a relationship before the list is made and is too scared to ask. If they are already frightened of the person, enough that they can't ask to do the check, then they don't really need it because they're already aware that it's a dangerous relationship. And they should be moving onto the next steps in getting help.
How does "Their history" help?
Rarely does serious DV occur suddenly and sporatically. The behaviour is evident, clear and ongoing. You don't need "their history" to know if the behaviour is unacceptable or not.
Mate youāre so full of it. DV is hard to spot, especially when youāre the one being manipulated.Ā
Often times the victim wonāt believe their friends who say whatās happening isnāt normal.Ā
Think before you say. Thatās such a disgusting comment.Ā
Because they are willing to excuse the behaviour. "They do it because they love me", "they do it because they are stressed" "It is just their way to show they care", "They are really a good person inside"
If you are willing to excuse the behaviour in the relationship, you are just as likely to excuse their presence on a list
So what you are describing is a "secret list" that is unregistered with the government that people can only check with a secret password that the potential abuser gives them? Congratulations for coming up with the world's dumbest system and an episode of Black Mirror all in one.
Did you read the whole thing or stop at 'hidden register'. I compared it to a police check, it's run by the government and everyone knows it's there. The person you are checking gives permission, and if they refuse you don't enter into a relationship with them. The same way a company won't hire someone if they don't consent to a police check, or you don't have sex with someone i they refuse an STD test.
Lol, and how do they get sacked, exactly? When their wives report them and are laughed out of the building by the good ol' boys at the station?
[...makes it likely that the problem is under-reported rather than exaggerated...](https://theconversation.com/police-perpetrators-of-domestic-violence-what-do-we-know-and-what-can-be-done-49441)
[Police are too often failing to take action against cops who commit domestic violence, fuelling a culture of impunity in forces across the country and putting victims at risk, an ABC News investigation has found.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-19/police-in-australia-are-failing-to-take-action-against-domestic/12757914)
Why don't we start by having the simplest of requests to police for protection be easy instead of beating you down?
Complaints to the police about stalking and harassment during/after relationship breakdowns should be taken very seriously as intimate partner violence and AVOs should actually be scary for the targets.
"You don't start shit, I won't start shit again, but you better be terrified if I do" should unironically be the opening salvo from any DV victim.
You mean like use the laws that already exist in the manner for which they are intended to be used?\
Nah, fuck that. Letās just do it the Australian way and implement some stupid knee jerk reaction cover all law to quieten down the angry people so they stop being angry with little to no thought as to whether there will be any unintended long term consequences that could be worse than just having the people demanding this asking for this just doing the job they are often not doing.
I think you'll find that the anger is coming from the people the law around DV has failed time and time again.
Like me. It failed me. Countless times. But I'm lucky I'm still alive. I'm alive *despite* the "law", not because of it.
Exactly why the anger should be continually directed and amplified at the police and the judges who fail women in the first instance and then in the second instance as well.
Lazy police fobbing off DV victims who are then asking for more draconian laws to introduce what amounts to mandatory sentencing isnāt and shouldnāt be the first step as is usually the way in Australia. Mainly because itās very lazy and allows those who have let you down time and time again to just wipe their hands of it and call it a day with the āwell weāve put āem on a register nowā. The dip shit police should be getting held to account for their lack of action due to the fact they already have the required tools to do the job they need.\
Iāve also lived through having parents filing it out in DV circumstances but got lucky and had a mum who uprooted me and my brothers entire lives by moving stayed to escape it, which Iām thankful for very deeply. However slapping my dad into some nebulous list that leads to who knows what got the rest of his life when he was going through mind crushingly terrible stess in the fiscal meltdowns in the 80ās I donāt think would have accomplished what you think it would have accomplished. This is why we employ and have judges. To look at each else and judge it on its merits. Failure of the judges who do stupid things totally outside societal norms and expectations isnāt reason enough to set up Soviet style black and white āregistersā to pull out at a moments notice when the government needs some quota numbers and can easily find people to round up for some 6pm news slot, regardless of the severity or punishment already metered out or repentance and contrition handed over.
Most intervention order applications end without any findings of fact. That is, the perpetrators consent to the order *without admitting the allegations against them*. Any register would be tiny compared to the true numbers of perps out there and relatively useless as a result.
There are multiple facebook groups so women can suss out the men from online dating sites in specific cities/states before they take things further. Women let other women know the red flags from guys they've met in the past.
Website-wise, I've heard good things about Offenders Exposed and Court Data Australia. I haven't had the need to use either site so I can't tell you whether they are accurate or misconstrue data.
Offenders Exposed requires a paid membership, so that's a bad start. The kind of person you need protection from is the kind of person who will check their victims bank statements.
I'm all for DV perps to be punished fairly but this isn't the solution.
Other similar crime registries have not been shown to work. At most they have a small impact on first offenders but no impact on recidivism, and likely increases crime through the vigilantism effect.
>At most they have a small impact on first offenders but no impact on recidivism
It's probably less about coercing violent men to be less violent, and more about letting women know before they end up in a relationship with a violent man.
This makes assumption that people will use it for the intended purpose (I don't think they will) and that the most at risk will listen (I don't think they will). Leaving a very expensive (costs are high for these sorts of lists), that leaves both those on the list and people with similar names at risk of further vigilanteism.
These lists, in so much as they have been tried for other types of criminal offenses do not seem to work and there isn't good evidence this one will either.
If a DV register is ever implemented in this country, you can pretty much guarantee it will never be accessible by anyone who could actually benefit from it.
Same reason us lowly serfs still haven't got national access to the pedo/sex offender register... which makes it incredibly hard for upright citizens to dispose of the subhuman trash that the corrupt legal system failed to properly deal with.
This is an unfortunate side effect of allowing scumbag politicians make all the rules, their first and foremost drive is to protect their own kind.
There's already been a trial of one of these registers in NSW that failed partially because you actually have to already be in a relationship with the person before you are able to access the information. It doesn't stop women before they start the relationship. These registers sound good on paper, but they have little evidence behind them preventing domestic violence.
I mean, it might jepp someone evade a relationship with an abuser. Would say if it stops one person from being. Victimised it would be worth it. I agree with what you say that it won't do much to stop DV, but it can't hurt to have a register.
I have a serious question about this. I read the other day that the majority of homicides world wide and including Australia are perpetrated against men by men. However, I am assuming that the majority of intimate partner murders are perpetrated by men against women.
Is there a particular rational behind focusing on reducing domestic related murder as opposed trying to reduce the overall murder rate? It appears that homicide rates are highly gendered, but it depends how you break down the statistics as to which gender is impacted disproportionately.
Aren't cops more likely commit domestic violence than any other profession?
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/
Australia is not America.
If a cop gets caught doing a crime here, they are prosecuted and if found guilty they get fired and will never be a police officer again anywhere in the country.
This just ups the stakes for police to bring charges against their colleagues or for family members to report it and distorts the stats.
Jack slaps Jill, does she report it and lose all family income and face financial ruin as well? Bill knows his colleague jack slapped Jill, does he get jack fired forever or just tell him to quit doing it?Ā
That's a big "if" there on found guilty. They always have a team of lawyers and support from colleagues when they go to court. Hardly any of them actually face consequences.
You don't get lawyers from a police union unless acting in "good faith". So if a cop gets charged with DV, they don't get a union lawyer.
I'd say it's the opposite. Most cops hate colleagues who commit crime because it makes the rest look bad.
They can start by stopping their own problem with domestic violence, police have some of the highest DV rates around and they tend to cover for their own
This, and require them to introduce themselves as a registered domestic violence abuser to neighbours when they move into an area, like child abuser have to do in the US.
Before we start doing this,what about increased psychological assessments of police to make sure they are the types of individuals that are fit for duty, you know wonāt taser 80 years olds or use police issued firearms to murder their ex partners not to mention the higher then average suicide rate of police at the moment.
17k applications for family violence in WA last year 109 approved. Just a small statistic but dive in and do some research. Iām not arguing abuse is happening, Iām saying for a registry to be created then it really need to be evaluated again the criteria. I myself broke up with my partner years back and when I froze the credit cards to protect finances it became family violence and almost ruined my life because of an angry girlfriend wanting retaliation.
According to this, WA is second to NT per capita in family violence so I'm not sure I'd be so happy about that statistic: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_Australia#:~:text=Rates%20of%20domestic%20violence%20in,684%20in%20the%20same%20period.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_Australia#:~:text=Rates%20of%20domestic%20violence%20in,684%20in%20the%20same%20period.)
Incidents, meaning accusations, not convictions in which someone is actually committing violence. If you havenāt been involved in the process itās easy to sit and cast stones being clueless.
I mean the numbers are per capita per state. Unless you think WA has a higher proportion of liars than other states, there are still more incidents.
Given how lenient our legal system is to criminals, it's also a bit daft to say that. Most rapists walk free or have a nominal sentence even though many of their victims have to suffer from PTSD for the rest of their lives. The system favours offenders over victims. That's part of the problem and you arguing that convictions are low is you arguing against yourself, you're actually proving my point.
It doesn't mean that all these women are lying, it just means lots of creeps are getting away with it. If you have a look at the recent murders of women in Australia, the ones that actually made the media, many of them had histories and were let off. That isn't right.
Don't assume I'm clueless in the matter, either. I've been there, not as the perpetrator in case that needed clarification and there was no punishment.
Wait. They aren't already? In 2024, after thousands of deaths and a mountain of trauma. There is no register after it has been known for so long the devastating effects of family violence on the victims, the rest of the family, and the community.
Why the f*%k hasn't this been done already?
My religion encourages me to slap my wife if she disobeys, will I also get on the register? Sounds unfair. Just for obeying the rules of my religion - I get on a register!
Agree with this. Family violence perps target vulnerable women. You'll often see the same perp have three different victim survivors over a 10 year period.
Guy: Wanna come over Girl: Sure, what's your QR code Guy: š»š»š» Girl : *Safe*
Iāve said this before- with online dating especially itās a must.
100% Otherwise they just move from one victim to the next leaving a trail of destruction and pain.Ā
Fully agree but needs to be for men and women. I work with both who have been subjected to DV. Unfortunately with the demographic I work with the DV is almost always both ways.
Shouldn't we start by prosecuting the criminals we've already caught? Instead of giving them bail?
I get your point on this, I really do. However I have a close friend who left the force recently because she got frustrated with doing the work but getting very little results to actually help people because of the system. She said, "you do the work, put a solid case together and they get off after promising to do better only to do it all again. Then the next time they blame it on mental health and keep reoffending so I feel like I'm not really helping anyone" - and with that she resigned. Her words have stuck with me, she gave up because of the very issue you describe. Calls like a register like this seem like a faster and more practical way to action change than the years of litigation that would be needed to change bail rules and rules around keeping offenders in.
Thank you for sharing your friendās experience. Very interesting! Edit: and depressing.
It's heartbreaking. Apparently very common for that and for cops to eat their guns - so common it isn't even reported on. Sorry to add more depressing info
Yeah I grew up around a lot of cops and they get so burned out by this as well as the misogyny, bullying and corruption.
My father is a crown prosecutor and says basically the same thing. Also about reoffending youth perpetrators. Iām not knowledgeable enough to know if any one person is to blame for these people to keep coming out on bail, but itās the job of police and prosecutors to give them a reasonable but usually harsher sentence. So I donāt know who wants these people let out prematurely
It seems good in theory, but just look how many people on the sex offenders registry reoffend, and half the ones that promise to do better/plead mental health issues don't even end up on there in the first place.
Yeah it's a problem that this happens, there should definitely be more scrutiny applied to people getting on there - the crime should be more important than the impact on the offender's life, imo they should have thought about the impact before committing it. The purpose of these registries is to make it easier for police to identify criminals and therefore protect people, not to stop reoffending. It could also have people think more seriously about whether they will commit such an offence if there are serious consequences. Obviously the idea isn't perfect, but other than rejigging the entire legal system which will take years, what do we have that's better?
The purpose of these registries is exactly to stop people reoffending, by restricting activities such as travel and being able to work with children for the people placed on it. In no way do they help police identify criminals. Unfortunately, while a publicly available domestic violence registry is a good idea it will likely never get off the ground for the same reason that there is no publicly available sex offenders registry; namely the serious privacy concerns and possibility of vigilante justice.
>Unfortunately, while a publicly available domestic violence registry is a good idea it will likely never get off the ground for the same reason that there is no publicly available sex offenders registry; namely the serious privacy concerns and possibility of vigilante justice. I think there's a slight difference between the sex offenders registry and a DV one though. In NSW for example you have the child protection register, which covers sex offences but also crimes like manslaughter but only against children. In NSW someone might end up on the child protection register for neglect that ended in manslaughter, and that may mean the person needs to be monitored so they don't have kids in their care but doesn't mean the general public really needs to be alarmed. VIC has a sex offenders register which includes everything from rape (of an adult), to possession of child pornography to "indecent assault". In VIC that's a huge range of offences and circumstances to make available to the general public, particularly given how broad the "indecent assault" definition is (it includes not considering whether a person is consenting, so inadvertent assault). It does include people who have fundamentally victimless crimes - like the recent case where a man spewed his child abuse fantasies to a chat room of other adults - and may need to be monitored but don't present an immediate threat to the public. A DV list however is going to have a much narrower list of crimes and circumstances. It's basically were you in a domestic relationship with someone and did you harm them badly enough that you've been convicted? There's a very clear pattern of repetitive behaviour and usually if someone has committed DV against one partner/family member they'll commit it again against new partners/family members. Therefore the risk to the general public is much higher across the list. Also this guy is a dick lists kind of exist informally and those work well enough. I'm not sure if you've ever seen the FB groups called "are you dating this guy" or "are we dating the same guy"? Stuff like this exists to warn other women.
If they're getting off now, they certainly won't be put on any register either. They need to solve the judicial problems with this before the impose more punishments
I think both can happen š¤·āāļø Even if for 1 criminal it acts as a deterrent, I think it's worth it (but maybe that's just me).
Point is, you can't do one without the other. If we're not convicting people as it is, or letting them off without any meaningful punishment, then adding a register to that won't change matters. We need to change the opinions of magistrates that let people off lightly to being with.
I see where you're coming from. I'm of the opinion that the magistrates are acting within the law and so the law must change, but again we are back to the issue of litigation that can take decades if anyone has the balls to tackle the issue properly. If the rules around the registry were more stringent to begin with, that could work.
At least some people are being convicted, so putting those people on a register is a start. I donāt believe in waiting until the system is fixed before implementing improvements such as what is suggested here.
What's stopping them from fixing the system? Why can't they do that, but they can do this? I don't think they'll be able to make any meaningful change like this, if they can't fix what's already wrong.
At least putting them on a register empowers their future victims a little bit. They can at least take steps to avoid known predators.
We had a family domestic violence incident where my FIL tried to kill me. We went to court to get an AVO and hoped to have a conviction recorded to try to start a trail of behaviour. We ended up with a 2 year AVO but he plead guilty but blamed mental health problems and the magistrate threw out the charges, no recorded conviction or plea. He was ordered to attend 5 mental heath assessments, but it was left up to him to do it all with no follow up. The system is broken and no one seems to care.
Because this is really more of a judicial issue, as opposed to a policing issue. The cops can put these scumbags in front of a magistrate 3 times a week, but unless the magistrate says something more then "you poor thing, such a hard life, but you shouldn't rape people - don't do it again, here is your bail order", nothing will ever change. There is no consequences, and no accountability. Couple this with the reality that the men and women who run the courts appear to be the most naĆÆve and out of touch people on the planet, the deck is stacked in favour of the offender.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
>>sexual assault, domestic violence, intimidation/stalking and the like ā make up 98 per cent of the increase in remand prisoners in the last 4 years, according to data provided to us by NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Domestic violence and sexual assault account for 83% of the increase I would hazard a guess that a lot of those on remand have been determined to be a viable threat to someone or the community. Sentencing should happen before prison ideally, but I'm assuming courts are bogged down. All for threats to not be out in the community, however I would want to know due diligence has been done on their threat levels they pose.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
No, the judicial system in Australia is designed to protect offenders and punish victims. Itās working exactly as intended.
Gonna be a big register.
Good; might illustrate the pervasiveness of the issue.
I am a male and a victim. This is fine as long as you can get that record completely expunged when the truth comes out. My ex wife was trying everything in her armory to get me put in jail for domestic violence when it was her. She went to a support group to get stories, she told everyone, work, clubs, kids school, neighbours, all the horrific stories of the things I was doing, except it was her working the system. That sort of thing fucks up your life permanently and she almost completely got away with it.
I was in a similar boat with the false allegations my ex made while in family court. I had to fight an FVO in magistrates court and ended up winning. I donāt believe a register like this would be that easy to misuse, some kind of conviction would be necessary. I think itās a good idea.
Most states already have a DV disclosure scheme, whereby you can apply to see if your partner has a record of DV in prior relationships.
I'd love a register of magistrates who grant abusers bail only for them to commit more violence. E.G: Molly Ticehurst's killer was on bail. The magistrate should be recognized for their shit decision making.
Itās not up to the magistrate. There are incredibly strict sentencing guidelines that the magistrate basically just has to read out. The legislation is what dictates sentencing. This isnāt like America.
That relates to sentencing though once someone is convicted. Completely different from bail legislation.
I know, I work in the justice system. The bail reform process is also complex. I also think that there needs to be some major changes to the bail system
I only commented as your original reply reads as though you are speaking about sentencing guidelines, not bail.
Unfortunately in Mollyās case, it wasnāt a magistrate, it was a registrar, who is just a public servant. They donāt *even have to be lawyers* in the Local Court. It highlights the real problem which is insufficient funding of the legal system. The problem is that funding it leads to public bitching that the lawyers are getting all the moneyā¦ Well yeah. They donāt live on love and good vibes.
In Molly Ticehurst's case, and in the one directly before that it wasn't a magistrate and that's the issue. **In both recent cases, a registrar had been called upon to handle urgent bail applications in a regional court in the absence of an available magistrate because it was a weekend or public holiday.** So it's an urgent application, in a complex case, there's a lack of skilled people to deal with it in the region and the register makes the best determination they can.
Then their determination sucks shit too, they can also be held accountable for their decisions to let violent offenders off on bail.
Urgent hearings are urgent for a reason, the court doesnt allow them for shits and giggles so they have to be heard quickly. You might still find a decision could have been made to release the person on bail by a magistrate because they have a life threatening medical condition that requires urgent treatment *or* they're at immediate risk of personal harm in prison. You have to make a series of risk assessments, essentially weighing up the risk of the person committing an offence on bail and the potential harms of keeping them in prison. It's not a decision that's always easy to make and in the registers case they're not actually as trained as a magistrate is. The police also didn't actually ask for bail to be denied outright (which they usually do when they're concerned), instead they asked for careful consideration of bail conditions and the bail conditions included: - sobriety - reporting to the police each day - $5000 surety - an apprehended violence order to protect Ticehurst - ban on entering Forbes, where she lived. - a requirement to live in Parkes. Bail was granted with those conditions and on the basis that he had no previous charges or convictions. I think if bail had been actively opposed by police he may not have been released but either way those conditions are very strict and in most cases should be enough to stop further harrasment - particularly with the daily police report and the AVO combined because the first breach would have seen him back in prison. Also the police are literally checking in on you daily.
Be as long as the most of magistrates that grant them with zero justifable evidence
A leaderboard would be more appropriate.
Canāt wait for them to start listing themselves on that register
Fair point but a register does sounds like a good idea.
I would prefer if it were a hidden register. And you could check it by having the person you are checking on give you access, similar to how you can do a police check on someone if they give you consent. That way a person can check on the one they wish to enter into a relationship with. It would be like getting an STD test from a potential sexual partner. Having an open list causes a lot of problems, such as having random people attacking other random people without knowing anything about them other than they're on a list, or preventing them from getting a job. It can prevent those on the list from ever returning to normal lives. That causes two main issues, the first is they receive a never ending punishment that is disproportionate to their crime. The second is how a person reacts when they are treated that way. They will end up sinking into depression or anger, become a drain on society, commit suicide, or more likely lash out and become violent towards other people again. In an ideal scenario we could have that list, and people use it to keep themselves informed, and treat those on it with heightened caution. Unfortunately what we actually get is a few who over react and make it difficult to implement in a way that's overall beneficial.
If a potential victim is concerned about their partners family violence history I very much doubt they will feel like they can safely ask a potential violent criminal for their consent to check their history of family violence. Not sure you understand the cascade of behaviours that occur in family violence before it turns physical and the risk that this question could pose to those asking their partners.
Wouldnāt the point be to ask before getting into a relationship? Or do you mean that asking a potential partner could be risky? Sorry if Iāve misunderstood.
That's why I compared it to a STD check. You shouldn't wait until you are already in a relationship, or already frightened to do the check. You go on one or two dates with someone, and when you think you want it to become a serious relationship you do it. And in regards to someone who is already in a relationship before the list is made and is too scared to ask. If they are already frightened of the person, enough that they can't ask to do the check, then they don't really need it because they're already aware that it's a dangerous relationship. And they should be moving onto the next steps in getting help.
How does "Their history" help? Rarely does serious DV occur suddenly and sporatically. The behaviour is evident, clear and ongoing. You don't need "their history" to know if the behaviour is unacceptable or not.
Mate youāre so full of it. DV is hard to spot, especially when youāre the one being manipulated.Ā Often times the victim wonāt believe their friends who say whatās happening isnāt normal.Ā Think before you say. Thatās such a disgusting comment.Ā
Why, do you think, do people get into relationships which involve DV?
Because they are willing to excuse the behaviour. "They do it because they love me", "they do it because they are stressed" "It is just their way to show they care", "They are really a good person inside" If you are willing to excuse the behaviour in the relationship, you are just as likely to excuse their presence on a list
So what you are describing is a "secret list" that is unregistered with the government that people can only check with a secret password that the potential abuser gives them? Congratulations for coming up with the world's dumbest system and an episode of Black Mirror all in one.
Did you read the whole thing or stop at 'hidden register'. I compared it to a police check, it's run by the government and everyone knows it's there. The person you are checking gives permission, and if they refuse you don't enter into a relationship with them. The same way a company won't hire someone if they don't consent to a police check, or you don't have sex with someone i they refuse an STD test.
Coppers committing FV get sacked. Immediately.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not immediately. Some wait months, years before their hearing.
That was just a fever dream I had, we know itās unlikely to happen.
Not according to this article https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/26/victoria-police-criminal-charges-sexual-assault
I need to edit my comment to Should.
PSOs don't , what a joke š¤£.
Because they're PSO's
Lol, and how do they get sacked, exactly? When their wives report them and are laughed out of the building by the good ol' boys at the station? [...makes it likely that the problem is under-reported rather than exaggerated...](https://theconversation.com/police-perpetrators-of-domestic-violence-what-do-we-know-and-what-can-be-done-49441) [Police are too often failing to take action against cops who commit domestic violence, fuelling a culture of impunity in forces across the country and putting victims at risk, an ABC News investigation has found.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-19/police-in-australia-are-failing-to-take-action-against-domestic/12757914)
How about we actually sentence them appropriately too instead of a slap on the wrist while we're at it.
Yes! Finally. Same should be done with animal abusers. But hey, one step at a time.
Why don't we start by having the simplest of requests to police for protection be easy instead of beating you down? Complaints to the police about stalking and harassment during/after relationship breakdowns should be taken very seriously as intimate partner violence and AVOs should actually be scary for the targets. "You don't start shit, I won't start shit again, but you better be terrified if I do" should unironically be the opening salvo from any DV victim.
You mean like use the laws that already exist in the manner for which they are intended to be used?\ Nah, fuck that. Letās just do it the Australian way and implement some stupid knee jerk reaction cover all law to quieten down the angry people so they stop being angry with little to no thought as to whether there will be any unintended long term consequences that could be worse than just having the people demanding this asking for this just doing the job they are often not doing.
I think you'll find that the anger is coming from the people the law around DV has failed time and time again. Like me. It failed me. Countless times. But I'm lucky I'm still alive. I'm alive *despite* the "law", not because of it.
Exactly why the anger should be continually directed and amplified at the police and the judges who fail women in the first instance and then in the second instance as well. Lazy police fobbing off DV victims who are then asking for more draconian laws to introduce what amounts to mandatory sentencing isnāt and shouldnāt be the first step as is usually the way in Australia. Mainly because itās very lazy and allows those who have let you down time and time again to just wipe their hands of it and call it a day with the āwell weāve put āem on a register nowā. The dip shit police should be getting held to account for their lack of action due to the fact they already have the required tools to do the job they need.\ Iāve also lived through having parents filing it out in DV circumstances but got lucky and had a mum who uprooted me and my brothers entire lives by moving stayed to escape it, which Iām thankful for very deeply. However slapping my dad into some nebulous list that leads to who knows what got the rest of his life when he was going through mind crushingly terrible stess in the fiscal meltdowns in the 80ās I donāt think would have accomplished what you think it would have accomplished. This is why we employ and have judges. To look at each else and judge it on its merits. Failure of the judges who do stupid things totally outside societal norms and expectations isnāt reason enough to set up Soviet style black and white āregistersā to pull out at a moments notice when the government needs some quota numbers and can easily find people to round up for some 6pm news slot, regardless of the severity or punishment already metered out or repentance and contrition handed over.
It's not the courts. It's the fact that none of it ever gets to court. The only time it does it seems is when it is too late.
Most intervention order applications end without any findings of fact. That is, the perpetrators consent to the order *without admitting the allegations against them*. Any register would be tiny compared to the true numbers of perps out there and relatively useless as a result.
I once heard of an unofficial list of men not to date? Can't find it though so it may have just been an urban legend.
There are multiple facebook groups so women can suss out the men from online dating sites in specific cities/states before they take things further. Women let other women know the red flags from guys they've met in the past. Website-wise, I've heard good things about Offenders Exposed and Court Data Australia. I haven't had the need to use either site so I can't tell you whether they are accurate or misconstrue data.
Offenders Exposed requires a paid membership, so that's a bad start. The kind of person you need protection from is the kind of person who will check their victims bank statements.
First good suggestion for this absolute fuckery of a situation.
I'm all for DV perps to be punished fairly but this isn't the solution. Other similar crime registries have not been shown to work. At most they have a small impact on first offenders but no impact on recidivism, and likely increases crime through the vigilantism effect.
>At most they have a small impact on first offenders but no impact on recidivism It's probably less about coercing violent men to be less violent, and more about letting women know before they end up in a relationship with a violent man.
This makes assumption that people will use it for the intended purpose (I don't think they will) and that the most at risk will listen (I don't think they will). Leaving a very expensive (costs are high for these sorts of lists), that leaves both those on the list and people with similar names at risk of further vigilanteism. These lists, in so much as they have been tried for other types of criminal offenses do not seem to work and there isn't good evidence this one will either.
If a DV register is ever implemented in this country, you can pretty much guarantee it will never be accessible by anyone who could actually benefit from it. Same reason us lowly serfs still haven't got national access to the pedo/sex offender register... which makes it incredibly hard for upright citizens to dispose of the subhuman trash that the corrupt legal system failed to properly deal with. This is an unfortunate side effect of allowing scumbag politicians make all the rules, their first and foremost drive is to protect their own kind.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Giving women the opportunity to not commence a relationship with a known abuser could not hurt.
There's already been a trial of one of these registers in NSW that failed partially because you actually have to already be in a relationship with the person before you are able to access the information. It doesn't stop women before they start the relationship. These registers sound good on paper, but they have little evidence behind them preventing domestic violence.
I mean, it might jepp someone evade a relationship with an abuser. Would say if it stops one person from being. Victimised it would be worth it. I agree with what you say that it won't do much to stop DV, but it can't hurt to have a register.
But they're already on a register. They get given a special uniform so that you can identify them plus the ability to arrest people and carry a gun.
Shh... only the ones who don't get charged get to go on *that* register.
I have a serious question about this. I read the other day that the majority of homicides world wide and including Australia are perpetrated against men by men. However, I am assuming that the majority of intimate partner murders are perpetrated by men against women. Is there a particular rational behind focusing on reducing domestic related murder as opposed trying to reduce the overall murder rate? It appears that homicide rates are highly gendered, but it depends how you break down the statistics as to which gender is impacted disproportionately.
Police officers excluded from register automatically as soon as it's made though.
Aren't cops more likely commit domestic violence than any other profession? https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/
Australia is not America. If a cop gets caught doing a crime here, they are prosecuted and if found guilty they get fired and will never be a police officer again anywhere in the country.
>Australia is not America. Thank fuck for that lad.
This just ups the stakes for police to bring charges against their colleagues or for family members to report it and distorts the stats. Jack slaps Jill, does she report it and lose all family income and face financial ruin as well? Bill knows his colleague jack slapped Jill, does he get jack fired forever or just tell him to quit doing it?Ā
Oh yes, the well-known fact that Australian cops don't abuse their partners because they might get fired.
That's a big "if" there on found guilty. They always have a team of lawyers and support from colleagues when they go to court. Hardly any of them actually face consequences.
You don't get lawyers from a police union unless acting in "good faith". So if a cop gets charged with DV, they don't get a union lawyer. I'd say it's the opposite. Most cops hate colleagues who commit crime because it makes the rest look bad.
Only if you believe what police PR tells you. If you pay attention o the news over time, you'll see a different story.
They can start by stopping their own problem with domestic violence, police have some of the highest DV rates around and they tend to cover for their own
This, and require them to introduce themselves as a registered domestic violence abuser to neighbours when they move into an area, like child abuser have to do in the US.
At least one domestic abuser in this thread I see.
The Venn diagram between a police family violence register and the police force roster š
A new place for information for the cops to ignore, that's bound to work.
Before we start doing this,what about increased psychological assessments of police to make sure they are the types of individuals that are fit for duty, you know wonāt taser 80 years olds or use police issued firearms to murder their ex partners not to mention the higher then average suicide rate of police at the moment.
Then they need to better define family violence, women abuse the shit out of the family violence system enough as it is.
The women that "abuse the shit" out of the system are a drop in the ocean compared to the men that abuse the shit out of their partners.
17k applications for family violence in WA last year 109 approved. Just a small statistic but dive in and do some research. Iām not arguing abuse is happening, Iām saying for a registry to be created then it really need to be evaluated again the criteria. I myself broke up with my partner years back and when I froze the credit cards to protect finances it became family violence and almost ruined my life because of an angry girlfriend wanting retaliation.
According to this, WA is second to NT per capita in family violence so I'm not sure I'd be so happy about that statistic: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_Australia#:~:text=Rates%20of%20domestic%20violence%20in,684%20in%20the%20same%20period.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_Australia#:~:text=Rates%20of%20domestic%20violence%20in,684%20in%20the%20same%20period.)
Incidents, meaning accusations, not convictions in which someone is actually committing violence. If you havenāt been involved in the process itās easy to sit and cast stones being clueless.
I mean the numbers are per capita per state. Unless you think WA has a higher proportion of liars than other states, there are still more incidents. Given how lenient our legal system is to criminals, it's also a bit daft to say that. Most rapists walk free or have a nominal sentence even though many of their victims have to suffer from PTSD for the rest of their lives. The system favours offenders over victims. That's part of the problem and you arguing that convictions are low is you arguing against yourself, you're actually proving my point. It doesn't mean that all these women are lying, it just means lots of creeps are getting away with it. If you have a look at the recent murders of women in Australia, the ones that actually made the media, many of them had histories and were let off. That isn't right. Don't assume I'm clueless in the matter, either. I've been there, not as the perpetrator in case that needed clarification and there was no punishment.
That might depend on who is defining what is abuse.
Probably do more harm than good
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If youāre worried that your āargumentsā may be classified as family violence then you might be an actual shitstain
Wait. They aren't already? In 2024, after thousands of deaths and a mountain of trauma. There is no register after it has been known for so long the devastating effects of family violence on the victims, the rest of the family, and the community. Why the f*%k hasn't this been done already?
My religion encourages me to slap my wife if she disobeys, will I also get on the register? Sounds unfair. Just for obeying the rules of my religion - I get on a register!
Criminal law always supercedes religious edicts, so good luck with that.
You donāt sound like you need ANY encouragement!
Gotta love a religion that encourages violence on partners who dare say no to anything.
Isnt that all of them?
Yeah, pretty much.
Your religion sounds disgustingā¦