Daily Life columnist and senior lecturer in journalism at the University of Technology, Sydney, Jenna Price, posits a domestic violence theory:
What we do know from the research is that there are several steps along the road to violent crime. Homicide is not usually a first offence, but many homicide perpetrators have domestic violence offences in their background. Maybe domestic violence is a gateway criminal activity – one that offenders practise in the privacy of their own homes without too much attention from the outside world.
Fairfax can’t work out how to promote Price’s column:
Regardless, Price does, however, cite research “supporting” her theory:
In a report published last year, Violent Criminal Careers, Weatherburn and co-author Wai-Yin Wan aimed to determine the long-term risk that someone charged with a violent offence will commit another violent offence.
The research shows that offenders are much more likely to commit another violent offence more quickly if they are male; and if one of their previous offences carries a domestic violence flag.
Domestic violence is a risk factor for other forms of criminal behaviour.
Man-hating lefties will assume that the cited report supports her claim when, in fact, it doesn’t. The study’s abstract does not mention domestic violence and domestic violence gets only passing mention throughout.
Being convicted of a domestic violence related offence (compared with a non-domestic violence offence) has no effect on the risk of further violent offending.
Higher rates of re-offending were found for younger offenders, Indigenous offenders, offenders living in disadvantaged areas and offenders whose index offences included convictions for justice procedure offences, malicious damage to property or theft (although not, interestingly enough, offenders whose index offences involved domestic violence).
With many years experience dealing with both abusers and abused psychiatrist Anthony Daniels – aka Theodore Dalrymple – describes the reality of domestic violence:
Today’s disastrous insouciance about so serious a matter as the relationship between the sexes is surely something new in history: even 30 years ago, people showed vastly more circumspection in the formation of liaisons than they do now. The change represents, of course, the fulfillment of the sexual revolution. The prophets of that revolution wished to empty the relationship between the sexes of all moral significance and to destroy the customs and institutions that governed it. The entomologist Alfred Kinsey reacted against his own repressed and puritanical upbringing by concluding that all forms of sexual restraint were unjustified and psychologically harmful; the novelist Norman Mailer, having taken racial stereotypes as seriously as any Ku Klux Klansman, saw in the supposedly uninhibited sexuality of the Negro the hope of the world for a more abundant and richer life; the Cambridge social anthropologist Edmund Leach informed the thinking British public over the radio that the nuclear family was responsible for all human discontents (this, in the century of Hitler and Stalin!); and the psychiatrist R. D. Laing blamed the family structure for serious mental illness. In their different ways, Norman O. Brown, Paul Goodman, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich joined in the campaign to convince the Western world that untrammeled sexuality was the secret of happiness and that sexual repression, along with the bourgeois family life that had once contained and channeled sexuality, were nothing more than engines of pathology.
[Leftist] enthusiasts believed that if sexual relations could be liberated from artificial social inhibitions and legal restrictions, something beautiful would emerge: a life in which no desire need be frustrated, a life in which human pettiness would melt away like snow in spring. Conflict and inequality between the sexes would likewise disappear, because everyone would get what he or she wanted, when and where he or she wanted it. The grounds for such petty bourgeois emotions as jealousy and envy would vanish: in a world of perfect fulfillment, each person would be as happy as the next.
The program of the sexual revolutionaries has more or less been carried out, especially in the lower reaches of society, but the results have been vastly different from those so foolishly anticipated. The revolution foundered on the rock of unacknowledged reality: that women are more vulnerable to abuse than men by virtue of their biology alone, and that the desire for the exclusive sexual possession of another has remained just as strong as ever. This desire is incompatible, of course, with the equally powerful desire—eternal in the human breast but hitherto controlled by social and legal inhibitions—for complete sexual freedom. Because of these biological and psychological realities, the harvest of the sexual revolution has not been a brave new world of human happiness but rather an enormous increase in violence between the sexes, for readily understandable reasons.
Of course, even before any explanation, the reality of this increase meets angry denial from those with a vested ideological interest in concealing the results of changes they helped to bring about and heartily welcome. They will use the kind of obfuscation that liberal criminologists so long employed to convince us that it was the fear of crime, rather than crime itself, that had increased. They will say (quite rightly) that violence between men and women has existed always and everywhere but that our attitude toward it has changed (perhaps also correct), so that it is more frequently reported than formerly.
Still, the fact remains that a hospital such as mine has experienced in the last two decades a huge increase in the number of injuries to women, most of them the result of domestic violence and many of them of the kind that would always have come to medical attention. The increase is real, therefore, not an artifact of reporting. About one in five of the women aged 16 to 50 living in my hospital’s area attends the emergency department during the year as a result of injuries sustained during a quarrel with a boyfriend or husband; and there is no reason to suppose that my hospital’s experience is any different from that of another local hospital, which, together with mine, provides medical attention for half the city’s population. In the last five years, I have treated at least 2,000 men who have been violent to their wives, girlfriends, lovers, and concubines. It seems to me that violence on such a vast scale could not easily have been overlooked in the past—including by me.
And there is very good reason why such violence should have increased under the new sexual dispensation. If people demand sexual liberty for themselves, but sexual fidelity from others, the result is the inflammation of jealousy, for it is natural to suppose that one is being done by as one is doing to others—and jealousy is the most frequent precipitant of violence between the sexes.
[A] failure of recognition is almost universal among my violently abused women patients…
This applies perfectly to former Australian of the Year Rosie Batty who chose to rekindle a relationship with a violent partner after a break of eight years.