Punishment for domestic abuse crimes should be abolished
due to a number of supporting reasons about the advantages and provision of alternative courses of action. Several views, however, disagree with this situation and insist on the importance of stressing deterrence for domestic abuse perpetrators. This paper would include a refutation of this argument as well as supporting evidence.
Domestic violence perpetrators must be treated and punished in accordance with the rules. Lifting the discipline imposed on those criminals creates an imbalance in the administration of justice, especially for victims (Ross, 2014). Abuse is considered a crime and a punishment are recommended to those accused of such offenses. Therefore, it is imperative for domestic abusers to receive the prescribed punishment for their actions.
Striking of punishment of domestic violence culprits provides room for forgiveness. This is not always the case. Removing the alternative penalty for such persons is a setback to the victims of the domestic abuse(Ross, 2014). Striking the desired punishment for violators is a threat to the victims since they will not have any source of protection against the violent offender. The existence of punishment for such crimes is an avenue for victims to seek justice for the harm inflicted to them.
Conclusion
Removing punishment for domestic violence offenders offers room for rehabilitation through means such as counseling. Although this is a viable option, there are higher risks to this alternative since it does not consider the need to focus on the threat the offender poses to the community in the absence of proper punishment. Striking punishment for the offenders opens a leeway that promotes repetition of such offenses based on the removal of a punishment mechanism that prevents any recurrences.
References
Ross, L. E. (2014). Continuing the war against domestic violence. Crc Press.
