Males accused of violence are typically treated more harshly than their female counterparts

The public is rightly revolted by violence, especially where it occurs in the home or where children, innocent people, or vulnerable partners are victims. That said, officialdom, the media and the public do seem too often to react differently, depending on whether the alleged perpetrator is male or female. Domestic violence homicides also tend to get high profile coverage in the media.

Prominent recent examples are cited below. I emphasise that I am not discussing guilt or innocence. My comments merely seek to illustrate how society has reacted differently according to the gender of alleged offenders, particularly when the circumstances are in any way "grey".

In Australia it is not entirely uncommon, when a male accused of a heinous violent crime is apprehended, for a crowd to assemble outside the police station to yell "mongrel", "hang the bastard", and the like, often with undertones of vigilante justice. On the other hand, I can't recall circumstances of vigilante threats towards a female in this country. When a female is identified as alleged perpetrator, officialdom and sections of the public seem (if anything) more prone to making excuses. Common apologies for female violence include battered wives' syndrome, post-natal depression, and pre-menstrual syndrome. While these may be valid considerations, they are often overdone.

A mob justice scene played out in Alice Springs following the alleged murder and sexual assault of Kumanjayi Little Baby last April. Hours after the girl's death was announced, the alleged perpetrator was reportedly spotted wandering a town camp. "Members of that town camp decided to inflict vigilante justice upon Jefferson (Lewis) and we received numerous phone calls saying he was in the process of being assaulted", Police Commissioner Dole said. "Our police officers were attacked at that time, as were the St John Ambulance crew that attended to assist". Commissioner Dole saidabout 400 "angry people" were later gathered outside Alice Springs Hospital trying to get inside and get to Mr Lewis. Many were shouting that Mr Lewis needed to face "payback".

While Indigenous principles of justice are pertinent in the Kumanjayi case, I can remember equivalent (less violent) demonstrations in (for example) the Anita Cobby case.

Overall, males are widely (and correctly) regarded as being more violent than females and are also stronger and more likely to prevail in a violent situation. This contributes to higher intimate partner (IP) victimhood rates for women. The big question is what can reasonably be done to reduce levels of violence.

The facts show that females are more likely to be killed by their intimate partner than males, though this is offset (in terms of victimhood) by males in domestic situations being more likely to be killed by their parent or their child. There were 48 female and 49 male domestic homicide victims in 2024–25. Among these 67 per cent of female victims and 29 per cent of male victims were killed by an intimate partner. 27 per cent of male victims and 17 per cent of female victims were the parent of the offender. 27 per cent of male victims and 15 per cent of female victims were the child of the offender.

Domestic violence orders (DVOs) have become the major tool aimed at preventing domestic violence. A problem is that no court order can categorically prevent a violent assault by a determined perpetrator. A further problem is determining who constitutes a realistic threat, given that innocent parties can have their lives ruined by undeserved court orders. It is widely accepted that many unscrupulous women have weaponised DVOs in child custody disputes with ex-partners.

In New South Wales alone, according to Bettina Arndt: 

...more than 100,000 domestic violenceorders are in force at any one time, more than double the number seven years ago. …On NSW's rate, the true figure across Australia is likely well over 300,000. Mothers are mostly the ones protected but since the children's arrangements run through her, contact with the children stops too. A father is cut off from his children immediately, with no trial, no evidence tested and no finding made".

Criminal lawyers advise that "If the police enter your home to investigate an alleged domestic violence offence, they must ask you whether you own any firearms. If you say yes, they must take your firearms. If an interim AVO is made against you, your firearms licence will be automatically suspended. It will remain suspended until your case is finished.

An AVO should be taken very seriously for a number of important reasons, you should be aware of. Firstly, breaching an AVO condition will result in a criminal offence carrying a penalty of imprisonment and a permanent conviction on your police record. Secondly, an AVO against you will affect child custody disputes in family court proceedings afterwards. Thirdly an AVO can affect your employment and working with children check clearance. Fourthly, an AVO precludes you from ever getting a firearms licence. Lastly, if you are renting premises, it can result in termination of a tenancy agreement.

In addition, a breach of an AVO offence, that is domestic violence related, requires a sentencing Judge to impose full-time detention or supervision, which is a very serious penalty.

If ever someone, later in life, makes a complaint to police against you, police will likely treat the allegation more seriously after seeing on their record that you have or had an AVO against you. Having an AVO in the past or present will also affect your ability to get bail, if ever faced with a criminal charge unrelated to the AVO later on in life".

Legal Aid NSW provides much the same advice. "If an AVO is made against you that includes an exclusion order, you must find somewhere else to live…..If your firearms licence has been suspended or revoked, you must immediately surrender your firearms and licence to the police. If you don't, police may seize your firearms and charge you with an offence.

The bottom line is that an excessive number of AVOs are being issued, and these cause great inequity. A solution, that still protects women in imminent danger, might be to require proof of actual violence or actual threats by the alleged perpetrator before granting AVOs.

Turning to cases of violence by men and women, the most prominent recent case of domestic homicide was that of Lindsay Clancy in the US.

On January 24, 2023, Lindsay Clancy fatally strangled her three children one by one with exercise bands. She then cut her wrists and neck and jumped from a second-story window, sustaining injuries that left her paralysed from the waist down. She claimed she heard an auditory hallucination commanding her to commit the acts and felt unable to resist.

That Clancy suffered mental issues was never in doubt. The main legal question was whether she had mental capacity to be held criminally responsible.

Clancy's defence case drew supporters who attended throughout the trial. The largest showing occurred in late August, when about 300 supporters (nearly all women wearing pink) rallied outside Plymouth Superior Court. Clancy's lawyer said she suffered a rare mental illness, linked to the stress, sleep deprivation and hormonal changes following childbirth. Prosecutors said the former nurse planned the 24 January 2023, killings and contrived to get her husband out of the house to commit her deeds. The trial ended with a judge declaring a mistrial because the jury said it could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Another case involved a newborn boy's body being found inside a garbage bin in Auburn in Sydney's west in September. Whether the baby had been born alive was unknown, but the handling of the corpse was allegedly inappropriate.

Responses from officialdom have been telling.

Detective Acting Superintendent Darren Sly said the "number one priority and concern" is the welfare of the baby's mother. He said the newborn was discovered by a local community member who was putting rubbish inside the bins. "It's very traumatic for that particular lady," Superintendent Sly said . He went further, being quoted as saying, "If there was to be any police action, that is not our priority whatsoever … our only priority at the moment is for the welfare of the mother and that she goes immediately to hospital."

Cumberland Mayor Ola Hamed described the incident as incredibly heartbreaking. "My thoughts are with those affected, particularly the mother and her family at what must be an unimaginably distressing time," Ms Hamed said. She said the community's focus should be on compassion and support for one another, rather than speculation.

More than three weeks later, police said a 24-year-old woman believed to be the infant's mother had been identified. She was taken to hospital for assessment. The woman was later charged with "mother alone conceal birth by disposing body". The charge, which carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment, relates specifically to the disposal of a dead child's body to conceal that a birth has taken place.

What stands out in this case is the public stance of officials in minimising any possible culpability on the part of the mother, and obfuscating the circumstances of the deceased baby and any loss of life involved. I wonder whether, if a man was involved in disposing of the baby's body, would he have been treated as "compassionately" by the police, the mayor, and the media?

Then there is the case of the mother, who allegedly stabbed her three children in the Blue Mountains on 20 September. Detectives reportedly are investigating whether the alleged stabbing attack on the three children was sparked by an argument with her husband. Two children died, while a toddler was seriously injured. The mother suffered allegedly self-inflicted stab wounds.

The father had thought his family (of Kenyan background) were going for a picnic, but he later learned his 42-year-old wife had driven their three children to a quiet street in the Blue Mountains and allegedly stabbed them, before turning the knife on herself. The mother has since been charged over the alleged murders and remains before the courts.

In this instance there have been no obvious public calls either of sympathy for the accused or demonstrations of anger against her. It is not known whether racial considerations played any part in this outcome. The case contrasts with a more common scenario where a father murders his wife and children and then attempts suicide. In such cases the common reaction is expressed public anger and revulsion.

On 27 September a 45-year-old woman was accused of running down her husband with a station wagon outside their home on a suburban street west of Brisbane. Neighbours claim the victim was trying to prevent his wife from leaving in the car, when she allegedly drove at him and killed him. Neighbours restrained the woman until police arrived. Detective Inspector Mick Manago reportedly said there had been a "disturbance" at the address. "The couple were known to the police and police had been to that location previously for domestic and family violence related matters. The wife was arrested at the scene and has now been charged with one count of domestic violence murder and one count of disqualified driving".

In this case, public reaction to the killing seems to have been largely sympathetic to the deceased.

In Canberra, a mentally impaired man, who fatally stabbed his wife of 60 years, remains in jail as no suitable alternative accommodation has yet been found. Manfred Uhle, 88, killed his wife at their Gordon home in June 2024. An autopsy identified the 78-year-old victim as having 10 stab wounds to her upper body, as well as 23 defensive injuries.

Uhle has a likely diagnosis of vascular dementia, with symptoms including memory loss, paranoid thoughts, confusion and delusions. He was found unfit to plead to a charge of murder, with the ACT Supreme Court finding elements of the charge had been proved. Due to cognitive impairment, the finding does not technically amount to a conviction but is instead a non-acquittal.

While there has been shock at the killing, there has been little public comment on the case.

More broadly, there has been academic discussion of the way domestic violence is reported, and significant numbers of journal articles can be found. In my opinion a big issue is that nearly all the commentary in this subject area is by feminist authors with "committed" views.

A review in the Journal of Communication Inquiry noted "significant gaps post #MeToo in ethical reporting on sexual violence because issues are contextually entrenched in systems of oppression, and much more work must be done to resist prominent stigma and stereotypes".

Another review stated that the Our Watch (2019) guidelines warn:

…journalists should not insinuate women are at fault for violence perpetrated against them". (Our Watch claims to be "Australia's leader in the primary prevention of violence against women".) "This includes information about who the victim was, with drugs or alcohol consumed, where they were, what they were doing, or how they may have 'provoked' the violence…Not only does victim blaming rhetoric ignore the autonomy of men in perpetrating these crimes, blaming women individually also treats violence against women as an individual concern, not a national, cultural issue.

While bringing attention to domestic violence experienced by Indigenous women is important, journalists must be careful not to unnecessarily refer to Indigeneity…The news media can work towards this by being receptive to guidelines such as those produced by Our Watch (2019). Featuring prominently in these guidelines is the direction to eliminate victim blaming messaging, as well as representations exonerating perpetrators.

Many newspaper reports were also likely to explain the crime in ways that detracted from the specific act of violence. More than half (52.7%) the articles we reviewed, for example, blamed male domestic violence on relationship difficulties, "jealousy" or infidelity, mental illness, criminality or character flaws, substance abuse issues, or financial difficulties. Rather than contextualising the violence as a systemic issue, these explanations often served to rationalise the man's violence as defensible.

In my view, it is very important, if Australia is to sensibly deal with the serious problem of domestic violence, that debate is not reduced to a divisive battle of the sexes. To date much of the legislative framework that deals with domestic violence (and related issues such as child custody and divorce) has been driven by the feminist lobby, which excessively pushes the notion that women committing acts of violence are sick or mad but not bad, and seeks to have violence by women swept under the carpet. On the other hand, feminists portray violence by male partners as "systemic".

Perversely, the main pushback in terms of seeking more balanced rights for men has not come from male politicians. It has come from women, such as Betina Arndt and Pauline Hanson. In addition, "lack of respect" has become excessively portrayed as almost the sole cause of violence against women. The reality is that mental issues, ethnic culture, substance abuse, and character also play a part, and need to be dealt with as part of any solution. It also needs to be said that some people (both men and women) can be aggressive in character and can never be lived with in harmony. Despite this some people are serially attracted to such partners.