Tarryn Thomas, anyone?

[ace]

Meanwhile convicted criminal burglar Marlion Pickett got to play with Richmond in a grand final after being released from jail. He is now back before the courts again for burglary.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/wes ... 5f95v.html
Lovett has never been convicted.
And Tarryn Thomas was convicted and jailed for what ?

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/read- ... 313a5d38bf

[The_Dud]

Meanwhile convicted criminal burglar Marlion Pickett got to play with Richmond in a grand final after being released from jail. He is now back before the courts again for burglary.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/wes ... 5f95v.html
Lovett has never been convicted.
And Tarryn Thomas was convicted and jailed for what ?

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/read- ... 313a5d38bf

Because stealing money from a business and bashing/raping women is the same thing

[skeptic]

I did a criminology grad cert for my own learning when I was new at my job (3-4 years ago) - I’m a health professional in a court setting.

One of the essay questions I tackled due to its interest, was are the Australian public happy with their legal system (or something to that that effect). At this point in my life, as I’m near 40 and studying merely to learn… I put a lot into it and was fascinated by the research.

The key points were that pretty across all places and times since research has been undertaken, everyone everywhere has believed that society is soft on crime. Juxtapose with this however was another study. There have been an absolute plethora of studies to the effect of Person X is brought in off the streets… has a bit of education about sentencing principles Magistrates/Judges operate under and are then armed with all the facts of a case.

The results… again universally consistent across the globe throughout for 50+ years, when given all the same information, the general public in sentencing were found to be either more lenient then decision makers… or in some instances, exactly as strict. However in no circumstances have average people been found to be stricter.

It’s a very challenging landscape at the moment.

One of the things I find very striking about it is that there is a huge call for improvement/action for post event measures…
Longer jail sentences
Stricter on bail
More money in crises response, homeless shelters/refuges

On a level it makes a lot of sense because they’re immediate, measurable and acknowledgment/responsive to a problem.

A concern however is that I’m seeing a lot less conversation and resources dedicated to the actual problem of what is happening, why is it happening and how can we stop it.

One of the challenges with things like harsher sentencing/stricter bail, is that research into criminology is pretty consistent/universal in its message that incarceration does not in any way shape or form stop the problem or prevent it. In all actuality… almost the exact opposite is true. The best outcome is that you remove the perpetrator temporarily away from the victim for a period of time but the problems will continue on release… but in most instances, people that go into the custodial system tend to come out and reoffend more. It’s one of the key reasons why magistrates tend to want to lean into rehab/support programs than jail because the research shows pretty clearly that custodial dispositions tend to result in more offending from prisoners than less.

For people that are about to commit crimes, the idea of going to jail does not deter them
Being in jail does not make people regret the crimes that they have committed
And in most instances, if there are particular psychosocial elements that contribute to a crime being committed… (financial stress, drug problem, trauma, unhealthy relationship dynamics etc) those things are usually still when the person is released.

There’s some absurd stat out there… I can’t quite recall it exactly, but it’s something to the effect of if you have an offender and you sentence them to a rehabilitative program and they complete it successfully, the rate of future incarceration is around 15%. If you sentence them to custody, the likelihood that they will return to custody again in the future is like 90%. It’s quite shocking.

In my experience at the court, one of the alternative options to a custodial sentence is a COmmunity Corrections Order… and more relative to this discussion, an option for violent offenders to undertake a men’s behavioural change and/or anger management program. Here’s the catch though… the waiting list for these programs in Victoria is off the chain. Many people actually fail CCO’s because they can’t get in to one within 12-18 months or have it travel absurd distances to get to them outside of Melbourne.

I also note, that Forensicare in Victoria has 1… yes 1 problematic behavioural management service in the state designed to work with complex repeat offenders. Wait list for referrals is well into the years, which is pretty much useless for things that are occurring now.

Overall, my feeling is that whatever direction we go in… a multifaceted approach is needed to address the problem on all angles and we have to be careful of responding in ways that don’t actually move the needle. I don’t want to undersell the importance of crisis support or the need for society to respond strongly to horrible actions but we also need to focus just as much on targeting measures that will stop violence from having occurred in the first place.

One of the things that the royal commission into mental health highlighted was the overwhelming feedback from families for just how difficult it was for them to get help in the period where they sensed things were starting to go wrong but before a crisis point had been reached. That’s still now arguably the biggest deficiency in the system because it doesn’t demand priority compared to a crisis.

[saynta]

Meanwhile convicted criminal burglar Marlion Pickett got to play with Richmond in a grand final after being released from jail. He is now back before the courts again for burglary.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/wes ... 5f95v.html
Lovett has never been convicted.
And Tarryn Thomas was convicted and jailed for what ?

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/read- ... 313a5d38bf

Well, not for the rape. Back then anyway. Would be these days.

Anyway the loser subsequently racked up other convictions.

[The Fireman]

So glad you didn’t say you had a PhD sceptic

[Dis Believer]

I find it fascinating that the original question I asked - "why is the community exclusively focused on female victims of violence/homicide when across the community in total 70% of the victims of violence and homicide are male"? The focus is entirely on 30% of the victims and "we should be outraged and act immediately".

One poster asked if "the men are being killed by women?".....Does it make a difference? Would we be more outraged for some reason if it was largely women that were killing these men? I still haven't been able to get a single intelligent response about why we are all supposed to be solely focussed on a very small subset of the victims of violence and homicide? Surely our concern and outrage should extend to all victims, not just the female ones?

[Life Long Saint]

I find it fascinating that the original question I asked - "why is the community exclusively focused on female victims of violence/homicide when across the community in total 70% of the victims of violence and homicide are male"? The focus is entirely on 30% of the victims and "we should be outraged and act immediately".

One poster asked if "the men are being killed by women?".....Does it make a difference? Would we be more outraged for some reason if it was largely women that were killing these men? I still haven't been able to get a single intelligent response about why we are all supposed to be solely focussed on a very small subset of the victims of violence and homicide? Surely our concern and outrage should extend to all victims, not just the female ones?

I think the circumstances of the violence matter to the level of focus.
Do we really care as much about gang related violence, underworld killings, violence where the participants are willingly involved?

We are outraged when the violence is perpretrated on the innocent or weaker victims. Nobody likes a bully.
We focussed on the king hit, violence against elderly victims, kids, etc.

It would be interesting to see the numbers broken down where the violence is against those victims and then broken down by gender, age, etc.

[amusingname]

I find it fascinating that the original question I asked - "why is the community exclusively focused on female victims of violence/homicide when across the community in total 70% of the victims of violence and homicide are male"? The focus is entirely on 30% of the victims and "we should be outraged and act immediately".

One poster asked if "the men are being killed by women?".....Does it make a difference? Would we be more outraged for some reason if it was largely women that were killing these men? I still haven't been able to get a single intelligent response about why we are all supposed to be solely focussed on a very small subset of the victims of violence and homicide? Surely our concern and outrage should extend to all victims, not just the female ones?

Given your posting on this topic, I doubt that you are actually willing to listen to any response, but here goes:

The focus on women being killed by men in a relationship is because it is seen as preventable, killing by a domestic partner is often the result of escalating behaviour and abuse that if stopped early in the cycle, that death could be avoided. That is why experts are saying early intervention to educate and stop abusive behaviour should be prioritised.

Again, the rest of your comments are just showing your bias. 70% of victims are male, how many of those are killed by other males? So you want the media focus to be on not killing anyone in general? I think that is common sense and the focus of the pointy end of the justice system currently. Every night there are news stories on drink driving deaths, with police urging people to think before they act, same as when someone is killed by a coward punch. If you think there is no media coverage of other deaths I don't know what media you are watching.

"Would we be more outraged for some reason if it was largely women that were killing these men"? Well if this hypothetical situation occurred and women were killing men in the same numbers, I would say yes there would be an outrage. But that isn't the case and has not been the situation at any point.

You want the concern to be on all victims of violence, not just women? Okay, so when is a point you will feel comfortable having any focus on women getting killed by men?

[Dis Believer]

Given your posting on this topic, I doubt that you are actually willing to listen to any response, but here goes:

The focus on women being killed by men in a relationship is because it is seen as preventable, killing by a domestic partner is often the result of escalating behaviour and abuse that if stopped early in the cycle, that death could be avoided. That is why experts are saying early intervention to educate and stop abusive behaviour should be prioritised.

Again, the rest of your comments are just showing your bias. 70% of victims are male, how many of those are killed by other males? So you want the media focus to be on not killing anyone in general? I think that is common sense and the focus of the pointy end of the justice system currently. Every night there are news stories on drink driving deaths, with police urging people to think before they act, same as when someone is killed by a coward punch. If you think there is no media coverage of other deaths I don't know what media you are watching.

"Would we be more outraged for some reason if it was largely women that were killing these men"? Well if this hypothetical situation occurred and women were killing men in the same numbers, I would say yes there would be an outrage. But that isn't the case and has not been the situation at any point.

You want the concern to be on all victims of violence, not just women? Okay, so when is a point you will feel comfortable having any focus on women getting killed by men?

I am willing to listen to any post - but the point you seem determined to miss here is that the only category of homicide that receives any attention is the only one where females outnumber males as victims. And yes, other areas receive news coverage, but news coverage is vastly different to being a permanent and well-funded policy focus for governments. Issues like "coward punch" deaths don't receive government attention and a billion dollars from the PM, they are issues that private citizens take up as a cause (was it Danny Green that started putting time into the coward punch issue?).

And drink driving deaths have nothing to do with homicide or violence.

The point to all of this, is that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars flow into the area of domestic violence every year, and there is an awful lot of politics involved. In fact, the recent bit of "politicing" was the change of how they reference the issue. It is now being referred to as "gendered violence" not domestic violence. That is no random chance, that is because if you control the language that people use, then you control the way that people think. Under the old language, you could point out that 33% of domestic violence victims are male, but by rebadging it as "gendered violence" you automatically exclude males from the discussion as victims! Neat, huh?

One last question, because clearly the illogical nature of focusing almost all of the resources on resolving on only 20% of a problem eludes you, but you actually responded to my question about "would our response change if the men were being killed by women?", so kudos to you. But can you answer me one final question about your response? Tell me, why would only care about 70% of homicide victims based on the gender of their assailant? We care about men being killed, but only if they are being killed by women? Why do we care so little for the males in our society, that a female has to be involved in their murder, before we care about their murder?

[amusingname]

I don't think that I am the one being illogical, as it seems that you think that there is nothing being done on any other form of violence, which is simply untrue. It is also untrue to say that almost all the resources are being used to resolve 20% of the problem, as it is clear that attempting to change behaviours that are leading to the rise in gendered violence also impact the prevalence of other violence, as the majority of violence is still between people known to each other.

What is the government policy that would satisfy you? Programs that say "Everyone stop killing anyone"? Random checks of men and women to make sure they aren't up to no good?

As to your last question, which is basically the same as all your questions, If you think that society doesn't care about male deaths and has it in for males like you clearly do I don't think any response is going to be good enough for you.

[The G Train Legacy]

Meanwhile convicted criminal burglar Marlion Pickett got to play with Richmond in a grand final after being released from jail. He is now back before the courts again for burglary.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/wes ... 5f95v.html
Lovett has never been convicted.
And Tarryn Thomas was convicted and jailed for what ?

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/read- ... 313a5d38bf

Because stealing money from a business and bashing/raping women is the same thing

I'm not aware of allegations that TT has bashed or raped anybody. Have I missed something? If you're talking about Lovett, I believe he was acquitted.

In regard to Pickett, the point isn't what he's accused of (which is serious). It's the fact that he has not faced trial and is contesting the charges. That he is innocent until proven guilty as was Lovett.

[Life Long Saint]

Lovett has never been convicted.

Simply untrue! He is a repeat offender.
From this article...
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 5a5dr.html

Former Essendon footballer Andrew Lovett has been jailed for eight months for a prolonged campaign of physical and psychological violence against his then-girlfriend, which included repeated assaults, spitting at her, pouring beer over her, threats and abusive messages.

Lovett committed 14 separate acts of violence against Melanie Rowe between February 2020 and December last year, including two attacks where he knocked her out: once by punching and kicking the woman when she was in the shower, and the other by choking her and pushing her over.

And later in the article...

Lovett was previously fined for assaulting another former partner by pushing her over. He was found to be a suitable candidate for a correction order even though he was considered a high risk of reoffending, the court heard.

[The_Dud]

Just some of our future leaders...

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/paren ... eeda51414e

[Dis Believer]

I don't think that I am the one being illogical, as it seems that you think that there is nothing being done on any other form of violence, which is simply untrue. It is also untrue to say that almost all the resources are being used to resolve 20% of the problem, as it is clear that attempting to change behaviours that are leading to the rise in gendered violence also impact the prevalence of other violence, as the majority of violence is still between people known to each other.

What is the government policy that would satisfy you? Programs that say "Everyone stop killing anyone"? Random checks of men and women to make sure they aren't up to no good?

As to your last question, which is basically the same as all your questions, If you think that society doesn't care about male deaths and has it in for males like you clearly do I don't think any response is going to be good enough for you.

Ok - well I will leave it here, because you've clearly brought into the trope.

So while we all do the socially acceptable thing and show our support for the drivel being fed to us through the media, I'll throw my support behind spending billions of taxpayers dollars to "change men's attitude towards their partners to help end this crisis."

Meanwhile I do wonder what will happen to the poor souls that this won't help:

Like the 50% of women who are murdered, but not by a current or former intimate partner!
Or the approximately 30% of homicide victims murdered by a current or former intimate partner that happen to be male!

You know what, I am absolutely for doing something that improves our society and helps innocent victims. But don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining - "What can we ever do about all those other totally random killings and violent attacks that make up the vast majority of the number??" "Oh, but we can do something about this specific segment, because it's all only to do with men's attitudes, and it will help everything else!"

Bollocks. We may as well set fire to that billion dollars, because it isn't going to change a thing.......

[D.B.Cooper]

I find it fascinating that the original question I asked - "why is the community exclusively focused on female victims of violence/homicide when across the community in total 70% of the victims of violence and homicide are male"? The focus is entirely on 30% of the victims and "we should be outraged and act immediately".

One poster asked if "the men are being killed by women?".....Does it make a difference? Would we be more outraged for some reason if it was largely women that were killing these men? I still haven't been able to get a single intelligent response about why we are all supposed to be solely focussed on a very small subset of the victims of violence and homicide? Surely our concern and outrage should extend to all victims, not just the female ones?

I think this post is disingenuous.

I really don't care about gender, but I do care about innocent victims.

I was outraged when I read about:
- Hannah Clarke and her 3 kids torched to detach in their vehicle by their estranged father/ husband
- Anna & Gracie Kemp killed with a spear gun by their husband/father
- Teen Jack Beasly stabbed to death on a night out
- Daniel Morcombe brutalised by a sadistic paedophile

As long as there is no collateral damage, I don't blink an eye at and couldn't care less about the likes of:
- The 36 Melbourne gangland murders between 1998 & 2010
- Gavin Preston being gunned down
- Alen Moradian being shot dead

I guess the above style "taking out the trash executions" are included in official data?

I do not have the official number but have read in multiple sources the % of partners being responsible for the death of their spouse is so high it warrants attention.

[Yorkeys]

Perhaps now might be the time to move the thread to a special forum for such issues? Just a suggestion.

[shrodes]

Curious how many chances some people on here think this guy should get…

[Dis Believer]

I think he should be done, but it will be an interesting watch.....

I am even more curious about the woman in SE Melbourne who was caught burying the dissected parts of her husbands body in the garden. She was caught because her digging ruptured the gas pipe, causing emergency services to be called in who consequently caught her in the act. It never even made the news! Can we imagine if the genders were reversed?

[The G Train Legacy]

I find it fascinating that the original question I asked - "why is the community exclusively focused on female victims of violence/homicide when across the community in total 70% of the victims of violence and homicide are male"? The focus is entirely on 30% of the victims and "we should be outraged and act immediately".

One poster asked if "the men are being killed by women?".....Does it make a difference? Would we be more outraged for some reason if it was largely women that were killing these men? I still haven't been able to get a single intelligent response about why we are all supposed to be solely focussed on a very small subset of the victims of violence and homicide? Surely our concern and outrage should extend to all victims, not just the female ones?

I think this post is disingenuous.

I really don't care about gender, but I do care about innocent victims.

I was outraged when I read about:
- Hannah Clarke and her 3 kids torched to detach in their vehicle by their estranged father/ husband
- Anna & Gracie Kemp killed with a spear gun by their husband/father
- Teen Jack Beasly stabbed to death on a night out
- Daniel Morcombe brutalised by a sadistic paedophile

As long as there is no collateral damage, I don't blink an eye at and couldn't care less about the likes of:
- The 36 Melbourne gangland murders between 1998 & 2010
- Gavin Preston being gunned down
- Alen Moradian being shot dead

I guess the above style "taking out the trash executions" are included in official data?

I do not have the official number but have read in multiple sources the % of partners being responsible for the death of their spouse is so high it warrants attention.

The killings you don't care about, let's call them criminal on criminal murders, don't come near 70%

[Moods]

So what are these other killings you’re referring to Dis Believer. Men against men? Women against men is not that common that it warrants government action, you agree? Violence between men is definitely an issue. People resolving situations with violence is a huge issue. But that’s always been an issue.

I guess you’re dead against pink ribbon day because heaps of people die of cancer, not just breast cancer. Fight MND, what about all the other health issues? Why are we focussed on that?

The money government spends on preventing the road toll is huge. They are preventable deaths. FV has really only been unearthed in the last 20 years. Before that no one did much about it. It’s only now researchers are discovering the damage it does to children and shapes their attitudes as they grow into adulthood. If we can prevent it at the source, maybe we can remove some violent people out of homes and even save some lives. Pretty sure the campaign is to focus on FV, not just men killing women.

[magnifisaint]

Looks like no one will touch him.

[ace]

I find it fascinating that the original question I asked - "why is the community exclusively focused on female victims of violence/homicide when across the community in total 70% of the victims of violence and homicide are male"? The focus is entirely on 30% of the victims and "we should be outraged and act immediately"

I will try to answer your question without upsetting the moderators.
You would emphasise women victims if you wanted to paint someone else as unfriendly to women while pretending you are more caring for women. You would dishonestly call the someone else misogynistic. Your purpose may be politically motivated to hurt their vote and boost your own. Would the dishonest elements of the media, the ABC and nine newspapers join in. Could that happen in Australia.

[D.B.Cooper]

I find it fascinating that the original question I asked - "why is the community exclusively focused on female victims of violence/homicide when across the community in total 70% of the victims of violence and homicide are male"? The focus is entirely on 30% of the victims and "we should be outraged and act immediately".

One poster asked if "the men are being killed by women?".....Does it make a difference? Would we be more outraged for some reason if it was largely women that were killing these men? I still haven't been able to get a single intelligent response about why we are all supposed to be solely focussed on a very small subset of the victims of violence and homicide? Surely our concern and outrage should extend to all victims, not just the female ones?

I think this post is disingenuous.

I really don't care about gender, but I do care about innocent victims.

I was outraged when I read about:
- Hannah Clarke and her 3 kids torched to detach in their vehicle by their estranged father/ husband
- Anna & Gracie Kemp killed with a spear gun by their husband/father
- Teen Jack Beasly stabbed to death on a night out
- Daniel Morcombe brutalised by a sadistic paedophile

As long as there is no collateral damage, I don't blink an eye at and couldn't care less about the likes of:
- The 36 Melbourne gangland murders between 1998 & 2010
- Gavin Preston being gunned down
- Alen Moradian being shot dead

I guess the above style "taking out the trash executions" are included in official data?

I do not have the official number but have read in multiple sources the % of partners being responsible for the death of their spouse is so high it warrants attention.

The killings you don't care about, let's call them criminal on criminal murders, don't come near 70%

Not sure I suggested they do account for any % let alone 70%

[The_Dud]

Would love all the stats obsessed to mention what percentage of homicides are committed by men and what percentage by women.

That would be a hard one to twist…

[The G Train Legacy]

Would love all the stats obsessed to mention what percentage of homicides are committed by men and what percentage by women.

That would be a hard one to twist…

It's over 90% men. How is that relevant to the point of Dis-believer's post?