I accept your invitation to do so.

https://www.justice.gc.ca...fv3-rr06_vf3/rr06_fv3.pdf

This Canadian (Ontario, specifically) study suggests otherwise- particularly on page 23.

https://link.springer.com....1186%2F2193-7680-2-9.pdf

This one only touches on recidivism, but notes a substantial correlation between aging and reduced recidivism rate.

https://link.springer.com...rticle/10.1007/BF00979025

This one requires purchase, but the abstract notes a 40% recidivism rate among 100 subjects.

I'm sure you could find papers that support the idea that "spousal abusers rarely change" (the internet when misused becomes ImRight.com) but, even if you did, your claim would still lack the consensus it requires to stand up to critique.
- MaximumBone

I was going to tease you about including links to a Jerry Springer website to support your argument, but then I realized this is a Tanner thread and that those links are 100% appropriate in an argument with Tanner.....so, well played, Boner.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, polarizing, black and white thinking. You're more concerned about being on the right side of the argument than thinking about the issue in a constructive way. In both of my comments I clearly said that I'd be fine with a lifetime ban, yet since I questioned a part of what you said, I'm automatically on the other side and defending abusers. It's an ignorant way of thinking.

I get that it's a highly emotional subject that and it's hard to think outside the box about it because it's pretty unforgivable. At the same time, I believe it's in everyone's best interest to find solutions because domestic abuse can be cyclical and abusers get worse without any treatment. The main part of finding real solutions is believing that abusers can change. Considering most spouses stay with their abusers meaning their children also stay, treatment is key to stopping the cycle. Even when the spouse gets out, treatment is important because an abuser will just do it to someone else if they don't change.

There are many examples of why change is a realistic and important part of solving the issue of abuse but I think I've made myself pretty clear. It's a complicated issue that needs constructive solutions.
- 13sundin13

I would say stop wasting your time using objective and critical thinking on an issue when arguing with Jimmy.
Even if you were to share with him facts like aggression can be directly linked to lack of Serotonergic transmission in specific areas of the brain, and as such can be corrected, he would still argue people never changed and then blast you for using science to defend wife beaters.

I would say stop wasting your time using objective and critical thinking on an issue when arguing with Jimmy.
Even if you were to share with him facts like aggression can be directly linked to lack of Serotonergic transmission in specific areas of the brain, and as such can be corrected, he would still argue people never changed and then blast you for using science to defend wife beaters.
- ruttager17

Great point. If you disagree with him, that means you are in favor of spousal abuse. If Voynov is repentant, he deserves to play, and as Kings fan, I have no problem if they sign him.

This is ridiculous. First of all, almost all spousal abuse goes unreported. Second of all, it's almost never an isolated incident. Quoting reconviction rates doesn't prove anything, and I strongly doubt your motives here are to correct some obscure hockey blogger, but rather to lie to yourself.

You might also consider that recidivism rates of 40% probably have more to do with the fact that if a case actually goes to court, there's a higher than normal chance she left him.

I can't even wrap my head around the fact that you're trying to prove that "most" people who hit their wife only do it once. That is just objectively false, as well as insane, crazy and bizarre.
- James_Tanner

There we have it. When you can't be bothered to provide evidence, you attack the individual. Classic ideologue.

To your closing point, it's beyond absurd that that's how you'd characterize my point. My argument is that once abusers are caught and punished, their rate of recidivism for the same crime is much lower than your claim would imply- particularly after treatment. They can have been physically abusive countless times prior, but there's evidence behind intervention working. Interventions that the NHL is in a much better place than you or I to determine whether Voynov has taken part in.

Sure, that's not an absolute confirmation of my stance as their are reporting biases and a number of other factors, but the science isn't yet conclusive.

James Tanner: The NHL Should Ban Slava Voynov for Life
- James_Tanner

Member when you said face-offs don't matter? Bergeron just won a face-off that lead directly to goal. Member?

There you go, signaling to the world what a virtuous person you are. Too bad it is only on a lightly read board so the whole world can't recognize it. Read my post, in no place did I defend Voinov's actions. Having said that, 90 days in jail, $16mm in lost wages and public humiliation would seem to be an appropriate punishment. But no, he will not be punished until all the people who want to scream from the roof tops that they are 'good' people who hold the 'right' opinions have enough blood to satisfy them. Fortunately, common sense still prevails and we'll likely see Slava playing in the NHL next season.
- Piston60

He self deported after being told he was going to be deported. It's doubtful he'll be allowed back in the country.

Not including guys who put their wife through a TV.

Just so you know, people who do this don't change. They don't get better. No second chances for domestic abusers.
- James_Tanner

Wrong.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, polarizing, black and white thinking. You're more concerned about being on the right side of the argument than thinking about the issue in a constructive way. In both of my comments I clearly said that I'd be fine with a lifetime ban, yet since I questioned a part of what you said, I'm automatically on the other side and defending abusers. It's an ignorant way of thinking.

I get that it's a highly emotional subject that and it's hard to think outside the box about it because it's pretty unforgivable. At the same time, I believe it's in everyone's best interest to find solutions because domestic abuse can be cyclical and abusers get worse without any treatment. The main part of finding real solutions is believing that abusers can change. Considering most spouses stay with their abusers meaning their children also stay, treatment is key to stopping the cycle. Even when the spouse gets out, treatment is important because an abuser will just do it to someone else if they don't change.

There are many examples of why change is a realistic and important part of solving the issue of abuse but I think I've made myself pretty clear. It's a complicated issue that needs constructive solutions.
- 13sundin13

Amen.

I believe they’re still married.
- LAkings96

Oh then how bad could it have been? Lol

this is such a waste of time to argue about because no team is going to sign him anyway
- jimbro83

Good point. I was thinking the same thing

If any other readers get in trouble with the law, then just hire Tanner. Sounds like a legal expert.

People said that about Avery but the rangers had a contract in front of him so fast it was unbelievable.
- shack67

Avery beat a woman?

here's actually what happened, Dallas signed Avery to a contract, 4 years 15.5 million

double what the Rangers wanted to give him

Avery made those sloppy seconds comments, Stars waived him, Rangers grabbed him on re-entry waivers and only paid half his salary, that was rule at the time. 1.9 mil a year.

Torts hated Avery, banished him to AHL, Avery retired and now makes videos in NYC yelling at people in the way in bike lanes.

the end

Sean Avery's book is an interesting read. Basically he never wanted to leave NYR. But Brett Hull, who was a close friend off the ice, was a co-GM in Dallas. Hull offered his buddy Avery a huge contract. Avery signed. But immediately hated life in Dallas. It was boring. He said he made the sloppy seconds comment at a time when he kind of hoped the Stars would get fed up and he'd somehow find his way back to New York. When Sather got the chance to re-acquire him on waivers at half price he jumped at it. So Avery actually got what he wanted. Before I read the book I thought he was an arrogant punk. After, my stance softened a little. He despised the old boys club of the NHL and the code that required everyone to say the right things rather than express a personality.

Avery beat a woman?

here's actually what happened, Dallas signed Avery to a contract, 4 years 15.5 million

double what the Rangers wanted to give him

Avery made those sloppy seconds comments, Stars waived him, Rangers grabbed him on re-entry waivers and only paid half his salary, that was rule at the time. 1.9 mil a year.

Torts hated Avery, banished him to AHL, Avery retired and now makes videos in NYC yelling at people in the way in bike lanes.

the end
- jimbro83