You are probably right that psychopathy is probably the big linking factor in domestic abuse, but this is a circular argument, because psychopathy means the lack of a conscience, and clearly a person with a conscience cannot live with him/herself and be a violent abuser.

I remember when I was six years old, I collided with a woman on the sidewalk when I was walking backwards. I informed her that it was her fault, because she should have seen I was walking backwards and got out the way. I still cringe at the memory.

Not a very severe crime of public order, I daresay, and my youth and inexperience in life on the planet at the time can be taken as mitigating factors, but I still blush at the memory.

This is because I have a conscience. Now do you think these people who inflict violence on domestic partners have a conscience? Hell, no, because if they did they would have to kill themselves.

Regarding my previous letter about experiences with abusive women: I think the important point here is not that both sexes may be victims (though that is true), but that abusers of either sex use the same methods of control.

Clearly women are at greater risk of being killed, because men are stronger and generally more violent than women. From a male point of view, it is true that you may be able to physically control the abusive woman, but if the conflict escalates to the use of weapons and either of you gets hurt and/or law enforcement gets involved, then you are still a loser, especially if you end up losing your job, home, or children (none of which has happened to me, but the potential is always a threat.)

To AKA Smith--

I think your head is just fine.

Your question is reasonable--why DID I feel responsible? Well, I was the oldest child in a family in which my father was an alcoholic and my mother was clinically depressed. I grew up being responsible for everyone and when the crunch comes, I continue in that pattern, I guess. That's probably why I chose social services as a career rather than banking. . . .

I suspect that you have not even read my other letters in this thread. You do not know my past. You do not know my circumstances. You do not know why I have arrived at my present puzzlement.

Wanting to really understand things requires thinking out of the box. Sometimes a certain social work type paradigm is a box.

Tell me how far you would go to help these women you are now volunteering to help. Would you break the law?

http://www.fvlc.org/gethelp_whywomenstay.html

At the top of the list is lack of resources.

For instance, I wonder if anyone here has ever tried to apply for welfare in a small town only to realize that InHuman Services, in their zeal to collect back child support, requires that you provide the name of the ex-spouse?

Maybe you are underground -- maybe have even changed your and your child's name. They will then notify your ex-spouse that he owes back child support to you, Jane Doe under your new name. Cover blown!

To get an exception to rule will allow you to keep your privacy, you must have a Good Cause Waiver from Child Protective Services. In order to keep your privacy, you get a Good Cause Waiver from Child Protective Services. You cannot easily get a Good Cause Waiver from Child Protective Services unless you have an open case file with Income Support. If you open a case file with Income Support, you risk exposing your new ID and new location to the abusive ex-spouse. CATCH-22 anyone?

one should always pull their own head out of their own ass before advocating that others do the same.

When you've gotten your head unstuck, please explain rationally how you disagree with AKA Smith's opinion. I find Smith's opinion to be generally reasonable. On the other hand, your opinion about Ms. Lloyd's attitude of superiority and condescension is itself steeped in an attitude of superiority and condescension, and doesn't add much to the discussion.

It's still up there.

Do you always respond to honest disagreement by being verbally abusive?

I wanted to know more about how the danger of abusers are assessed. It seems that police departments have done (and are still doing) quite a bit of research on this because they are on the front lines of having to deal personally with abusers every day.

Summarizing what I found out:

The first and most important thing is the recidivism rate. Few crimes have such recidivism. So if an abuser hits you, you can bet it will happen again. Also, guys who show a propensity to violate conditions of parole and court orders are more likely to escalate abuse.

Which brings us to escalation itself. If it is getting worse, it is going to get worse still.

Among other behaviors that dangerous abusers show are a propensity to child abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, other altercations with the law, possessiveness and jealousy and monitoring, and threats of suicide by the abuser.

Dangerous offenders often have a juvenile record.

Abusers who show a willingness to sexually coerce, use weapons, or abuse by strangling are more likely to kill.

However, of the guys that actually kill, it seems that psychopathy is a really BIG factor. In their own modest way, psychopaths are the world's biggest control freaks.

So why do I bother with this summary? Maybe someone will see it and it will help that person see that leaving is truly the best option.

How you do it, when you do it, -- that is all strategy. Giving up your job, your children's schools, your home, even your identity is NOTHING compared to being dead.

Oh yes, it does happen in "nice" families as well. One reason we don't hear about it so much then is that so-called "nice" families tend to have more financial resources.