Crime in the home has always been a prominent issue in the society, however only recently has there been more of a recognition for it and actions are being taken by individuals to prevent this crime. To further comprehend this problem, two articles have been analysed. Article one, (Bond, CEW & Jeffries. S 2014, ‘Similar Punishment? Comparing Sentencing Outcomes in Domestic and Non-Domestic Violence Cases’) focusses on whether or not domestic or non-domestic violence receive similar ‘punishments’ in law, after becoming considered a serious crime with far reaching harmful consequences, especially for women and children (Mills 1998: 307). Article two (Willis, M 2011, ‘Non-disclosure of Violence in Australian Indigenous Communities’) primarily
…show more content…
It proposes that historically, domestic violence was not considered as an important issue as opposed to non-domestic violence. The reason for this being that non-domestic violence was perceived as more serious as it was thought to affect a community at large and not just an individual victim. The article begun by referencing many sources which found leniency towards domestic violence sentences for example; Cretney and Davis (1997) found that, in a sample of 243 cases, 11 per cent of domestic assault cases received a prison sentenced compared to 15 per cent for non-domestic assault (Bond and Jeffries 2014). The article further stresses that the evidence that has been used throughout the discussion (prior to the study) has many flaws. Moreover, it goes on to its own study which was conducted in NSW (Magistrate Court) between January 2009 and June 2012, consisting of approximately 63,000 case studies. Moreover, the article denotes that domestic violence activists, feminists and researchers have argued that the perpetrators of domestic violence should be given the same punishment as offenders who are violent outside of intimate or familial relationships. Furthermore, it contends that the use of criminalisation of domestic violence has been a crucial governmental response to shifting domestic violence from a private concern to a public issue. The (Ringland and Fitzgerland …show more content…
The articles further emphasise the statement that if the perpetrator was a stranger the situation would be considered as more serious and thus should be reported in any circumstance. This primarily follows the main argument of article one, which is that the non-domestic violence is seen as more serious as opposed to domestic violence as it could affect the community as a whole and not just a certain individual. Article one draws on previous literature and then draws on its own study whereas the article two merely analyses other studies and doesn’t present one of its own. Article one is comprised of many detailed tables which are visually appealing to the reader and gives them a mental image of the information being put forward, as opposed to the article two where tables are present however they are very minimal and simplistic thus lack detail for the reader to conclude results from it. Article two puts forward reasons as to why the domestic violence isn’t disclosed in Indigenous communities whereas article one only implies that the non-domestic violence is more harshly punished than domestic violence. Additionally, article one suggests that future examinations need to go beyond numerical however it does not present an idea of how this could be done including the victims, as opposed to article two where there are proposed ways into how the violence can be disclosed in a
It proposes that historically, domestic violence was not considered as an important issue as opposed to non-domestic violence. The reason for this being that non-domestic violence was perceived as more serious as it was thought to affect a community at large and not just an individual victim. The article begun by referencing many sources which found leniency towards domestic violence sentences for example; Cretney and Davis (1997) found that, in a sample of 243 cases, 11 per cent of domestic assault cases received a prison sentenced compared to 15 per cent for non-domestic assault (Bond and Jeffries 2014). The article further stresses that the evidence that has been used throughout the discussion (prior to the study) has many flaws. Moreover, it goes on to its own study which was conducted in NSW (Magistrate Court) between January 2009 and June 2012, consisting of approximately 63,000 case studies. Moreover, the article denotes that domestic violence activists, feminists and researchers have argued that the perpetrators of domestic violence should be given the same punishment as offenders who are violent outside of intimate or familial relationships. Furthermore, it contends that the use of criminalisation of domestic violence has been a crucial governmental response to shifting domestic violence from a private concern to a public issue. The (Ringland and Fitzgerland …show more content…
The articles further emphasise the statement that if the perpetrator was a stranger the situation would be considered as more serious and thus should be reported in any circumstance. This primarily follows the main argument of article one, which is that the non-domestic violence is seen as more serious as opposed to domestic violence as it could affect the community as a whole and not just a certain individual. Article one draws on previous literature and then draws on its own study whereas the article two merely analyses other studies and doesn’t present one of its own. Article one is comprised of many detailed tables which are visually appealing to the reader and gives them a mental image of the information being put forward, as opposed to the article two where tables are present however they are very minimal and simplistic thus lack detail for the reader to conclude results from it. Article two puts forward reasons as to why the domestic violence isn’t disclosed in Indigenous communities whereas article one only implies that the non-domestic violence is more harshly punished than domestic violence. Additionally, article one suggests that future examinations need to go beyond numerical however it does not present an idea of how this could be done including the victims, as opposed to article two where there are proposed ways into how the violence can be disclosed in a