rodfarva said:

GO!

---

Quote:

Anyways i watched my mom get smacked around when i was younger, and belive me ive never hit a woman. I hate that shit acctually.

---

Ripple said:

Quote:

Anyways i watched my mom get smacked around when i was younger, and belive me ive never hit a woman. I hate that shit acctually.

---

That must have sucked!

---

Chemy said:

I have to say that ACTUAL domestic abuse is a tragedy, however the police and domestic violence courts have abused so many innocent lives.

All it takes is a call to 911, a threat of violence or a "battery" which could be poking your finger on some part of her body, and the "male offender" is going to jail.

I've also seen a woman charged with "attempted murder, domestic violence" for shooting her boyfriend once in the groin, and once through his bicep into his chest after an argument over cocaine. She was sentenced to, get this: 8 years probation, yes, no fucking jail time at all, none at all for trying to kill someone with a 40 caliber beretta, thank God the thing was loaded with ball rounds for training.

If the guy in this situation had shot her twice he would have received an automatic life sentence, and the news stations would lauded it.

</end rant>

---

Amen,

but, sometimes, this actually does happen the other way around...

All the more reason we need to program un-emotive robots to police our societies


~Monk

circularvortex said:

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

---

x2

Quote:

If one relies exclusively on the five experimental studies, the effect sizes are even smaller. However, the effect sizes may be small as a result of measurement error and methodological difficulties common to research in applied settings  McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000 .  McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000 warn that “(g)iven that the stakes are so high, we should be wary of accepting the null hypothesis when it might very well be false—as it almost always is.” Based on the experimental studies, the effect size ( d) due to treatment is 0.09 and 0.12, based on victim report and police records, respectively. This means that treatment is responsible for an approximately one-tenth of a standard deviation improvement in recidivism. Based on a partner report, treated batterers have a 40% chance of being successfully nonviolent, and without treatment, men have a 35% chance of maintaining nonviolence. Thus, there is a 5% increase in success rate attributable to treatment. To a clinician, this means that a woman is 5% less likely to be re-assaulted by a man who was arrested, sanctioned, and went to a batterers' program than by a man who was simply arrested and sanctioned. Whether this success rate is cause for celebration or despair depends on a cost–benefit analysis; taking into account the cost of treatment and any potential “side effects” vs. the benefits of injury prevention and decreased psychological risk to the victim as well as the children exposed to family violence. A 5% decrease in violence may appear insignificant; however, batterers treatment in all reported cases of domestic violence in the United States would equate to approximately 42,000 women per year no longer being battered.

---