Consider legalizing domestic violence (as proposed by budget cuts in Topeka, KS). It is possible that domestic violence might paradoxically decrease as a result.
1. The victim is now free to attack back also without fear of criminal prosecution, perhaps using a weapon to overcome any physical strength difference. (E.g., Lorena Bobbitt?) The threat of "mutually assured destruction" might prevent the domestic violence from occurring in the first place.
2. The victim may come forward about the violence, without fear of sending the main breadwinner of the family to jail (in contrast to current cases where the victim refuses to cooperate with the prosecutors, or even outright lies to protect the attacker). Having come forward, society may dole out "intervention" or public humiliation or ostracism or vigilantism (or threats of it), punishments to penalize specifically the attacker, and not hurt the family as a whole. These punishments may be more effective in preventing domestic violence than the threat of jail time.
3. Lacking a means of stopping domestic violence when it occurs, society may develop better means for victims to exit a violent relationship: e.g., cheaper, easier divorces, more support for single parents.
4. Out of fear of getting trapped in a violent relationship with no criminal prosecution recourse, partners may be more discerning during courtship whether the other is prone to domestic violence, and avoid such relationships. If victims come forward more often (#2 above), there could more information available to tell if a potential partner has a history of domestic violence in previous relationships.
All this is speculation. Can we measure, or correctly predict, whether such a change in policy will be effective? (Can we even accurately measure the current rate of domestic violence?)
No comments :
Post a Comment