http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/news/newsstories/8431836 Domestic violence kills an Australian woman almost every week but Jordan Baker doesn't think we take it seriously enough. Can a man be considered brave if he beats his wife? I wouldn't have thought so, but the Royal Humane Society of Australasia has a different view. Related: Wife beater wins bravery award Last month the Society, of which the Governor-General is a patron, gave bravery awards to heroes of the Black Saturday bushfires. On the merit certificate list was Paul Francis McCuskey, who, a year after the fires, pleaded guilty to brutal attacks on his wife. These included kicking her in the stomach while she was pregnant and kicking and hitting her in the head so badly it left her permanently blind in one eye. In 2009, McCuskey was among a group of fire fighters who braved treacherous conditions to visit an elderly woman living alone to encourage her to leave. As they were driving back, they had to use handsaws to clear burning trees from their path. Each member of the cohort has been recognised by the society for his or her bravery that night. McCuskey, 41, of Reefton, couldn't accept the award from the Victorian governor because he was in prison. In 2010 he was sentenced to five-and-a-half years in jail for assaulting his former partner over eight months in 2006 and 2007. The judge cited his contribution to the Country Fire Authority as a redeeming feature, and acknowledged his remorse, but said his crimes were carried out in a brutal and cruel way. The jail sentence was partly intended to send a clear message to the community that such violent behaviour would not be tolerated. When McCuskey's award was first questioned by the Australian Women's Weekly the Royal Humane Society president said the organisation was not aware of his criminal history. Last week a review committee decided the award should stand. The main criterion of the society is to bestow bravery awards on those who risk their lives to save the lives of others, a society spokeswoman said. "It has never been the role of the Society to judge award nominees on their probity either prior to or after their act of bravery." McCuskey's victim did not comment, but is believed to be extremely upset. So are other firefighters from the unit. His former commander, CFA captain Dan Bennett says: "As far as we are concerned, he is a scumbag and he's where he deserves to be. What we're disappointed in (is) that it's taken the shine off the award for the rest of the crew." If we're honest, most of us can be both brave and cowardly. But McCuskey's actions went beyond cowardly. He assaulted someone more vulnerable than him, someone unable to fight back, and someone he professed to love. He hit her, dragged her from a car and kicked her in her pregnant belly (she later miscarried). He has left her, in her words, embarrassed, ashamed and fearful of going out in public alone. Not to mention blind in one eye. When you weigh McCuskey's lone act of bravery against his many of cowardice there is little ambiguity. He is a coward. The decision suggests the Humane Society is not taking his crime as seriously as it should, especially as its gold medal for bravery went to a man who was stabbed eight times while saving two women from domestic violence. I wonder whether McCuskey's citation would have been upheld if he'd been convicted of paedophilia or murder. Domestic violence is at epidemic proportions. A woman is killed in Australia almost every week by a partner or former partner. A third of women who have had a male partner have experienced violence. But Australians still don't take domestic violence seriously enough and the Royal Humane Society's decision to uphold the certificate of merit only confirms this. Related: 'The terror of my abusive marriage' Domestic violence will never be treated with the gravity it deserves until this mask of respectability is torn off, and the men who perpetrate it are treated like low-life criminals rather than upstanding citizens with a tragic flaw. Awarding a bravery award to Paul McCuskey insults his victim, every other victim of domestic violence in Australia, and the firefighters who deserve to enjoy their bravery award without the taint of McCuskey's cowardice. ================================================= According to the law, once s law breaker has served their punishment, they`re supposed to be able to move on in life. What this bloke did to his wife was disgusting, he should have been hanged, but at what point does an offender get a fresh start in life? Should an offender get a fresh start anyway, and if so, why. I can think of lots of reasons to brand dirtbags for life, but the only reason that I can think of for not doing so, is that they would become more desperate, and therefore more dangerous. I also believe that we dropped the DP too hastily for emotional reasons.
I couldn't read all that so early in the morning because i hate violence against women and children. And anyone who does so is a big coward in my books. What ever law it is that you want to change that would stop this type of thing you have my support.
Bashing of wifes or kids, fighting others in a pub or else, glassings, battings, you name it, you will find it here. When I was young, we had the occasional fight, which ended when the first man went down. But today our society is covered by low lifes, who have no moral values and no consciousness whatshowever. We lost it, and neither Labor nor Libs are doing anything about it. We recently had some visitors here from Europe, who witnessed a fight, and were disgusted the way the agro enfolded and of the brutality they had to watch. In many ways I think I have a more leftish attitude, but when it comes to this subject, I can be far far right. Wife bashers of the sort mentioned above, nail them on a cross.... Cheers
We are know that times change, but I personally believe all this unnecessary violence is directly related to people now being able to drink alcohol 24hous a days in pubs and clubs. Maybe its time to start closing pubs, clubs and bottle-shops at 10:00PM. We also know that excessive alcohol impairs an individuals ability to be reasonable, so do we need alcohol served to people 24 hours per day?
it would of been hard to give everyone a bravery award for doing something without including everyone that did it I think good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things or more to the point, people can do good and bad things crimes of passion have always existed, always will, it's a crime as it should be, do the crime, do the time
When you've served your time you've served your time. We should worry more about recidivism rates than punishing the crap out of people to satisfy our lust for revenge.
I do agree with that, there are men, women and even children that snap and commit a act of violence, there are also those that are constantly abusive in all of those groups, those are the ones of more concern to me, I think society at large should frown on any type of violence imo, but we are also a society that believes when you have done you time, you pick yourself up and try to be a productive citizen
The questions I`m pondering here D&D is, how much, if at all should a person`s record affect their lives? Should an offender be allowed to move on? If not, I get the impression that the law doesn`t deem them a reasonable risk to not reoffend, in which case, they shouldn`t be released into the community.
You are aware of the "criminal record" right? The slate isn't just "wiped clean". What you apparently want is for them to be publicly exposed. All that's going to do is encourage vigilantism. And as citizens they have the right to a certain amount of privacy. Once they have done their time in prison, they do not need to be harassed by individuals like yourself as they try to reintegrate into society. No, assaults should not be life sentences. And the Death Penalty is completely impractical and stupid.
This sort of violence is inherent in every society at every time - just the level changes. It is not about "lefties" or "righties" allowing anything (remember Alan Jones and the Cronulla riots? Can't get much further right than Jonesey) Violence begets violence but there are ways in which we can set the Mores of society so that violence is far less accepted One way would be to reduce alcoholism (very very large contributor) another would be to have more anger management programs But you cannot legislate all of it I remember looking after a patient, about 25 years ago now, who threw herself onto the driveway to stop the boyfriend from leaving her - he backed over her - she forgave him Me? I would have nailed his scrotal sac to the wall with a large roofing nail while he was still attached
Agreed Ziggy but even just a punch up in a Pub can end up with you having a criminal record - even if you did not start it and were only pulled into the fight at the wrong moment - this can stop you from holding down certain jobs in the future A one off involvement in a brawl is very very different from every saturday night turning up at the local ED with a split lip
What he did to his wife was disgusting, sure - he his bravery occured before he beat her, and that is what he is being recognised for. Beating his wife doesn't take away the fact he acted bravely, does it?
I like though how people think that people are more violent today than they were 20, 30, 40, 50, etc years ago. Totally wrong. The past was more violent, it was just socially accepted back then to beat your wife, etc.
Social stigma is enough, we do not need to change any laws to further punish people who have already served their sentence. Harsher penalties for repeat offenders makes more sense. But the problem with this stuff is that it doesn't get reported in the first place.
There wouldn`t be many people not aware that a person with a criminal record doesn`t have a clean "slate", I thought that this was too obvious to mention. I don`t know where you got the idea that I want ofenders publicly exposed, I thought I made it clear enough that I`m undecided on this topic & simply wished to discuss the issue.
One of my questions is : 1. Should we revise the whole criminal record situation? A friend of mine, in his late 60`s, has a criminal record for smoking Mary Jane 20 odd years ago. His record does exclude him, and handicap him in a number of activities. That`s all illegal he`s ever done, he smoked a joint. Should a person like this be handicapped by his record to the same extent of someone who has committed serious crimes? What about repeat offenders of serious crimes?
Powerbird, I like your idea of using a roofing nail, his scratch sac wouldn't be much good afterwards. I think we have too many parents, who can't be bothered to much with the upbringing of their offspring, lacking any reasonable values, but good at fighting, drinking, drugs, rooting and not working. As long as parents don't know their parenting, alcohol reduction will help, but its not the actual problem in itself...
Yeah... you said: The likelihood of being sent to jail for smoking "one joint" and secondly that this will be any sort of serious impediment to getting a job... is extremely tiny, you're probably not getting the whole story there. Criminal record checks aren't just like "YEP HE'S A CRIMINAL!" they do actually tell you what the crime was. I'd say if he's using that as an excuse in his life, it's a pretty poor one. There's obviously a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of people out there with minor offences (even traffic offences can go on your criminal record), there's only a few jobs and other special circumstances where this could even be relevant. The vast majority of jobs don't require a criminal record check in the first place. So no, a person who has committed a minor crime is not "handicapped by his record to the same extent of someone who has committed serious crimes".
What are your "points" then? Do you want "wife beaters" publicly named and shamed or don't you? A criminal record isn't just a "one size fits all" scenario. And for that matter, there's nothing to stop a journalist from finding out that someone went to prison for something. As has obviously happened here. To the extent that it's in the "public interest" there are already mechanisms that allow for criminal history to be known. GBH is not rated the same as a minor possession charge or traffic offense. Sexual crimes are not rated the same as minor offences, etc, etc. What the actual problem is, is that these people (usually women) do not report the crimes to police. And Mak is right, an act of bravery is an act of bravery. We don't take medals away from traumatised war heroes who carry out domestic violence. If he committed an act of bravery during the bushfires, that is a completely separate issue to him assaulting his wife. It certainly just not justify it, or excuse it and he of course should be punished for it.
I've addressed every point you have raised. I do not have a comprehension problem, nor am I flaming. If you don't think I am understanding your points, then rephrase them or go into further detail. The criminal records system does not function the way you describe. Minor offences are not a serious impediment to your future. Not unless you want to be a judge, a lawyer, or have any other such occupation that warrants a high level of scrutiny. The article you posted did not mention anything at all about changing the criminal record system, nor suggested that this was a problem. This: "It has never been the role of the Society to judge award nominees on their probity either prior to or after their act of bravery." Is a matter for that particular institution. If a journalist was aware of his criminal history, it would not have been particularly difficult for them to find this out. It was obviously no secret as the rest of his crew were perfectly aware. Don't get me wrong, I agree the guy is a complete bastard and should be in prison. But this has nothing to do with the criminal records system. And again, I say that it would never occur to anyone to with hold a military declaration of honor from a man who committed domestic violence against his wife. They're not saying "This is a brave man", they're saying "This man did a brave thing", it's quite different. He is awarded for something good and brave he did, he is punished and put in prison for something criminal and cowardly he did. That is as it should be.
