Opponents of equal punishment for male and female offenders in domestic violence matters prevail in DSC debate

(l-r) Pendengue and George
(l-r) Pendengue and George

Kareen George and Jair Pendengue, emerged victorious after going head to head with Almira Lewis and Daniel Panthier, in a debate on the topic ” There should be equal legal repercussions for both men and women accused of domestic violence.” George and Pendengue opposed while Lewis and Panthier proposed.

The event was held following the 11th annual International College Recruitment Fair which took place on November 15th at the DSC auditorium. All four debaters are students of the DSC.

The winning team amassed a total of 785 points compared to their counter parts’ 757 points, with Jair Pendengue receiving the title of Best Speaker.

The proposing team promoted the view that men and women should be given the same punishment for committing an act of domestic violence.

“In order to move forward as a God fearing and law abiding commonwealth nation, we as a people should uphold the principle of equal punishment for both male and female abusers.” Panthier stated.

The proponents cited, among other arguments, the theory of retributive justice and their opponents’ lack of authority to question or undermine the judicial laws of the country.

The opposing team however, countered by suggesting that because of a difference in body mass and overall increased “aggressive emotion” caused by male hormones, the effect of an attack by a man and that of a woman, should not be equated and neither should the repercussions.

They referred to some well-known cases of domestic abuse in Dominica that  supported their perspective and emphasized the difference between equity and equality, stressing the need for equity to be applied to legal repercussions.

“Equality in this situation is far from fair. Instead, my colleague and I propose equity as it relates to legal repercussions for domestic violence and not equality. In order to promote fairness and justice, men deserve harsher punishments.” George said.

In remarks after the debate, the judges said that both teams were exceptional and displayed ample knowledge of the topic.

The debate was made possible through the collaboration of the DSC, the Dominica Library and Information services and the Dominica Agricultural, Industrial and Development Bank.

Almira Lewis and Daniel Panthier
Almira Lewis and Daniel Panthier

Copyright 2012 Dominica News Online, DURAVISION INC. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.

Disclaimer: The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com and its parent company or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by DominicaNewsOnline.com. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • contain any material which violates or infringes the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or are purely ad hominem attacks
  • a reasonable person would consider abusive or profane
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote prejudice or prejudicial hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are off-topic and/or excessively long

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

9 Comments

  1. Almira Lewis
    November 19, 2016

    As the one who proposed the topic and as president of the club, let me firstly say that DNO’s journalist did not do their job well.The individual asked the debaters for their speeches, which is unethical conduct when it comes to being a journalist.When sent to a venue, listen and take notes! Don’t harass people for what they said after, while “freeing up!” I was not there when the speeches were given because I would have said NO!
    In regards to the actual debate, the topic was chosen due to the fact that Gender Affairs requested a topic surrounding domestic violence;any topic is debatable not matter how taboo it sounds!
    My speech spoke on feminism and its eradication of gender roles which means that mean can be abused. I also spoke of the vicious ways that women abuse men and are scared to report because of society’s preformed bias. Lastly, I brought up our constitution and laws that demonstrate that discrimination of a sex during prosecution is forbidden.

  2. November 18, 2016

    “Men are stronger …”

    “Women are very aggressive …”

    The physical strength and psychological aggressiveness would depend upon the individuals themselves. The “aggressiveness” could be determined by the kind of day they were having. These factors more than gender itself could trigger the assault and the harm that might be done.

    A fixed law that would determined the penalty based upon the harm that was done would be more in keeping with the gender equality that is sought in the 21st century.

    However, both teams did well. Each presented a case that showed good thinking.

    Sincerely, Rev. Donald Hill.

    I am sure it was an interesting debate but the laws of a nation can hardly be based upon something this
    subjective.

  3. November 18, 2016

    To make a difference between how men and women are punished in cases of domestic violence is a form of sexism and contrary to the principle of equality.

    We want to practice equality in hiring, wages, job responsibility, sexual child abuse laws, the traffic laws, and other areas. Once an exception is made for how domestic violence offenders are punished based on gender the door is open for people to press for similar changes for other offences.

    Also a change like this would send out the message that to hurt a man is not as serious as hurting a woman, or one gender is of greater worth than the other gender, therefore one gender deserves better protection than the other.

    It is the offence itself that must be judged. The circumstances in each case ought to be evaluated. Was there physical injury? Was there provocation? Was it self defense? These are the things to consider not the gender of the parties.

    Sincerely, Rev. Donald Hill.

    • November 18, 2016

      Domestic violence in a household is a problem that is often ongoing. Unfortunately the seriousness has a tendency to escalate until somebody is hurt. The laying of charges and a court appearance can cause resentment and often does nothing to assure it will not happen again. There is a cause or causes that need to be discovered and treated. It is not always a matter of punishing somebody. There is a healing that needs to take place.

      As every counselor knows the offender is often somebody who was abused himself (herself) earlier in life.
      Sadly, this is a learned behavior. The offender must learn better ways to handle frustration and deal with anger.

      The judge should make professional counseling mandatory for both parties under the supervision of a court appointed social worker who would report to the judge.

      Sincerely, Rev. Donald Hill. Evangelist. (Pastoral Counselor Certificate)

  4. Channel 1
    November 17, 2016

    An excerpt from the article above – “The opposing team however, countered by suggesting that because of a difference in body mass and overall increased “aggressive emotion” caused by male hormones, the effect of an attack by a man and that of a woman, should not be equated and neither should the repercussions.”

    One word to describe that excerpt – Utter rubbish!!!!! That statement alone would make any debating side lose.

    So wait nah, I thought that in this era of supposed equality, both men and women are supposedly equal and deserve EQUAL TREATMENT.

    Oh wait,…….oops,……(silly me)….. I almost ‘forgot’ that gender equality as propagated by delusional feminists ONLY applies to situations where high salaries, prominent positions and high societal status are on offer.

    Of all the topics in the world, how did the debate committee of the DSC select that topic dere nuh? To me it’s a wasted discussion. Common sense would say that EQUAL CRIME=EQUAL PUNISHMENT no matter…

    • Channel 1
      November 17, 2016

      …..the gender.

  5. derp
    November 17, 2016

    well I for one afraid of Dominican woman more than man no joke I being serious….

  6. Fun&Frolic
    November 16, 2016

    It baffles me that equality in legal repercussions between genders is even a debate topic at Dominica’s highest education institution. I expect this would be one of those “duh” topics you would find being discussed after consumption of a couple bottles of white rum. Sober, intelligent people expect equality between genders to include equality before the law, including repercussions and punishment. Oh well, maybe being killed by a woman is not as life-threatening as being killed by a man after all. Whey de white rum at!

  7. jonathan st jean
    November 16, 2016

    There is a lot of hypocrisy in society and slowly we are coming to grips with them and and making corrections as we go along seeking to create more balanced and fair societal values.One area has to do with the fact that women are so weak that they deserve unequal protection under law.Just Google “the other side of domestic violence that no one ever talks about”.Women are very aggressive and love to hit,they hit their men,their children their domestic partners,their in-laws.It’s because men are stronger than women that they suffer more physical injury but women are the aggressors in most physical altercations.One day we will admit the truth and do something about it so this will end.Lets be open minded and move to more equal and fair societal norms.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available