Why is a DUI associated with Violence to Women?

[JeremyandIrina 0]

can replies be added without the quoting and overquoting 100 times? I did not lose my point of reference in just 2 pages

[jangler 0]

The theory is that if you have an alchohol/drug offense, you likely have abused alchohol/drugs. There is a well-documented correlation between domestic violence and alchohol and drug abuse.

Oh PUHLEEEZZE!!! First you say, "The theory...". Let's start making laws based on theories! Also, the correct wording should be, "if you have been abusive, you likely have abused alchohol/drugs," not the other way around. I'd love to see the documentation and studies which indicate that people with DUI convictions abuse their spouses.

[Imbra2005 0]

Nobody said there are any studies that show correlation between DUI convictions and spousal abuse. What was said is that there is statistical correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence. Let me know if that's what you're disputing and I'll give you all the statistics and federal government studies on that (including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Now, if you have a DUI, some might say (I'm not one of them) that drinking to intoxication and then getting behind the wheel is proof positive that you abused the intoxicant -- at least that time (and most would suggest that it wasn't the first time, either). Thus, there is a DUI's can be a proxy or marker for substance abuse. And then there is a connection between substance abuse and domestic abuse. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

Ask yourself if it would give you pause to find out your young daughter was about to move thousands of miles away to a new country to marry a much older guy with multiple convictions involving alcohol or drugs.

Edited June 24, 2006 by Imbra2005

[BradLuvsMaria 0]

Nobody said there are any studies that show correlation between DUI convictions and spousal abuse. What was said is that there is statistical correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence. Let me know if that's what you're disputing and I'll give you all the statistics and federal government studies on that (including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Now, if you have a DUI, some might say (I'm not one of them) that drinking to intoxication and then getting behind the wheel is proof positive that you abused the intoxicant -- at least that time (and most would suggest that it wasn't the first time, either). Thus, there is a DUI's can be a proxy or marker for substance abuse. And then there is a connection between substance abuse and domestic abuse. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

OK! I will still delete my profile but not without clarifying and asking for facts of your statements!!

First: lets quote you so no one miss interprits your statment:

(including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Where are your facts to document this statement??? Do you read People magazine?

Second: Do you realize that almost all states in the US have a sobriety level of .08 That is the consumption of four beers or glasses of wine within a two hour period for a person that weighs 160 lbs. Senator Kennedy reciently only swallowed a mouth filled of pills and didn't remember what happened. He didn't mention the alcohol. Should he still be a US Senator!

You have no facts!!! You are expressing your opinion on a pre judged attitude that the person who was convicted with a DUI was Oblivious and passed out drunk. Most dinner parties these days have respectable people who leave and drive home but yet they fall in to the .08 catergory. Stop being so rightous!!!

[Imbra2005 0]

You want facts? Here you go:

National Crime Victimization Survey data: “alcohol was used by 67 percent ofpersons who victimized an intimate.”

The 50% figure can be found in Chapter 1: Alcohol and Violence, in 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health (U.S. Dep’t. of Health and Human Services: June 2000), p. 57, http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf.

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, “Experts Assess Links Between Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence” http://www.samhsa.gov/news/newsreleases/980121t.html).

Hope this helps.

by the way....what does People magazine have to do with it? What does the BAC level have to do with it? and it was Congressman Kennedy of Rhode Island, not Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, who recently had the auto accident that was in the papers. (although they both have had substance abuse problems.)

Edited June 24, 2006 by Imbra2005

[BradLuvsMaria 0]

You want facts? Here you go:

National Crime Victimization Survey data: “alcohol was used by 67 percent ofpersons who victimized an intimate.”

The 50% figure can be found in Chapter 1: Alcohol and Violence, in 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health (U.S. Dep’t. of Health and Human Services: June 2000), p. 57, http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf.

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, “Experts Assess Links Between Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence” http://www.samhsa.gov/news/newsreleases/980121t.html).

Hope this helps.

Great statistics! So the other 33% should just be convicted! Lets just lock them up and put away the key. Does you trivial google search include the huge amount of recovering alcoholics that live each day praising their sobriety? No. You just say that once convicted, you are never reformed! 10 years sober and people like you disgust me!!!

[Imbra2005 0]

You want facts? Here you go:

National Crime Victimization Survey data: “alcohol was used by 67 percent ofpersons who victimized an intimate.”

The 50% figure can be found in Chapter 1: Alcohol and Violence, in 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health (U.S. Dep’t. of Health and Human Services: June 2000), p. 57, http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf.

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, “Experts Assess Links Between Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence” http://www.samhsa.gov/news/newsreleases/980121t.html).

Hope this helps.

Great statistics! So the other 33% should just be convicted! Lets just lock them up and put away the key. Does you trivial google search include the huge amount of recovering alcoholics that live each day praising their sobriety? No. You just say that once convicted, you are never reformed! 10 years sober and people like you disgust me!!!

wow. yes, good luck to you.

[zethris 0]

Nobody said there are any studies that show correlation between DUI convictions and spousal abuse. What was said is that there is statistical correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence. Let me know if that's what you're disputing and I'll give you all the statistics and federal government studies on that (including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Now, if you have a DUI, some might say (I'm not one of them) that drinking to intoxication and then getting behind the wheel is proof positive that you abused the intoxicant -- at least that time (and most would suggest that it wasn't the first time, either). Thus, there is a DUI's can be a proxy or marker for substance abuse. And then there is a connection between substance abuse and domestic abuse. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

OK! I will still delete my profile but not without clarifying and asking for facts of your statements!!

First: lets quote you so no one miss interprits your statment:

(including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Where are your facts to document this statement??? Do you read People magazine?

Second: Do you realize that almost all states in the US have a sobriety level of .08 That is the consumption of four beers or glasses of wine within a two hour period for a person that weighs 160 lbs. Senator Kennedy reciently only swallowed a mouth filled of pills and didn't remember what happened. He didn't mention the alcohol. Should he still be a US Senator!

You have no facts!!! You are expressing your opinion on a pre judged attitude that the person who was convicted with a DUI was Oblivious and passed out drunk. Most dinner parties these days have respectable people who leave and drive home but yet they fall in to the .08 catergory. Stop being so rightous!!!

I am sorry to say, but you are being to overtly emotional on this issue. Perhaps there is some sensitivity to the mistake you made and the truth hurts per se'. Whatever the truth may be, sometimes parts of what is said strikes home and irritates the tender parts. Your best bet is to just ride the wave.

Immediatly my impression of the whole deal is that you feel .08 isn't drunk enough to not drive? If so, then by this same token, how could a law be passed for such a low rating? Further, how could IMBRA or VAWA be passed? (other than the law encapsulation technique that occured this time around)

Well there ARE studies. Many that show direct corelations to other studies and points of logical deductive reasoning to have proviso's in the law for something like this. Think of it like computer software, you hear all the time about "hackers" exploiting a hole in the code until it is patched with another law. Well in the code of law there are many holes, and the laws that are intended to patch the hole are generaly made with this kind of deductive reasoning. It is in fact even used sometimes to show proof of concept mathematical equasions such as if a=b and b=c then a=c. This just happens sometimes. IMBRA, and the VAWA is a "we're not messing around" law that intends to patch even the most ambiguous holes.

I suggest just dropping the issue, leave your pride at the door here, and open your heart and get to sharing your story.

[cheeky^Wolf 0]

I like People magazine

But I would like to say well done to BradluvsMaria, 10 years is fantastic.

Good luck on your journey.

Helen

[BradLuvsMaria 0]

I like People magazine

But I would like to say well done to BradluvsMaria, 10 years is fantastic.

Good luck on your journey.

Helen

IMBRA2005 - You have one your hatred post. Never will i be apart of this judgment by people I can't admire. Deleteing my profile!!!!

[jangler 0]

Nobody said there are any studies that show correlation between DUI convictions and spousal abuse. What was said is that there is statistical correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence. Let me know if that's what you're disputing and I'll give you all the statistics and federal government studies on that (including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

I am not disputing that. I am saying that it is never a good idea to just assume things. But if we must, it makes more sense to assume that it is a safer bet that a person who abuses his spouse has probably had times when he/she has had too many drinks than to say that a person who has had too many drinks at times has probably abused his or her spouse.

Now, if you have a DUI, some might say (I'm not one of them) that drinking to intoxication and then getting behind the wheel is proof positive that you abused the intoxicant -- at least that time (and most would suggest that it wasn't the first time, either). Thus, there is a DUI's can be a proxy or marker for substance abuse. And then there is a connection between substance abuse and domestic abuse. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

By you pointing out that statement you are insinuating and going from a DUI to spousal abuse irrationally. 1+1 does not equal 100.

Ask yourself if it would give you pause to find out your young daughter was about to move thousands of miles away to a new country to marry a much older guy with multiple convictions involving alcohol or drugs.

Why do you bring up age in this question? It shows how you have an ulterior motive when you add things which have nothing to do with the original point to your hypothetical scenerios. In answer to your question, I would be more concerned that my daughter was going to be with an irresponsible drunk!

Imbra2005, please, let's step back a bit. Why is it that you are such an advocate for EVERY aspect of this law and the way it is being implemented? There have been many intelligent and rational posts on this board that you dismiss off-handedly and get on the defensive, which just shows a lack of tollerance for any view outside of your own. Why is it that you can never say, "I believe the IMBRA law is a good thing to help protect women but you make a good point about that and it was wrong of them to blah blah blah"? It does not help your cause if you are NEVER willing to agree with some obviously common sense points by others who perhaps may be angry at the delays caused by IMBRA yet still have valid arguments pertaining to certain aspects of it. At times you come across as an impenetrable and uncaring individual to some who truly are being treated unfairly. Wouldn't it benefit your cause if you showed that you were open to some possibility that not everything is great about IMBRA? Is everybody who disagrees with you wrong? It would make you more reasonable sounding and not so combative. Show some interest in the reality, not just what benefits your ideas.

[Imbra2005 0]

Jangler, thanks for your post. I don't mean to sound combative. But don't you know why I'm so supportive of IMBRA?? Because I'm a paid shill, remember?? Just kidding (I don't think anybody could pay me enough to sit on this site at all hours anyway).

I just honestly support the law and don't think that there is much that is wrong with it. I'm sorry that there are delays, but that's just a by-product of its implementation. Honestly, I think that if USCIS was more on the ball, the delays wouldn't have happened. So while I fully support the law and its provisions, I think the fire-drill in its implementation was poorly executed.

I also honeslty think that a large portion of the unhappiness with the law derives from misunderstandings, so I strive to clear those up. You are free to have opinions, but there's no sense arguing about facts -- I just think most people don't have them.

That said, I think your earlier point about the direction of the correlation between AOD and domestic abuse is well-taken. Feel better?

[Artegal 1]

Nobody said there are any studies that show correlation between DUI convictions and spousal abuse. What was said is that there is statistical correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence. Let me know if that's what you're disputing and I'll give you all the statistics and federal government studies on that (including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Now, if you have a DUI, some might say (I'm not one of them) that drinking to intoxication and then getting behind the wheel is proof positive that you abused the intoxicant -- at least that time (and most would suggest that it wasn't the first time, either). Thus, there is a DUI's can be a proxy or marker for substance abuse. And then there is a connection between substance abuse and domestic abuse. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

OK! I will still delete my profile but not without clarifying and asking for facts of your statements!!

First: lets quote you so no one miss interprits your statment:

(including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Where are your facts to document this statement??? Do you read People magazine?

Second: Do you realize that almost all states in the US have a sobriety level of .08 That is the consumption of four beers or glasses of wine within a two hour period for a person that weighs 160 lbs. Senator Kennedy reciently only swallowed a mouth filled of pills and didn't remember what happened. He didn't mention the alcohol. Should he still be a US Senator!

You have no facts!!! You are expressing your opinion on a pre judged attitude that the person who was convicted with a DUI was Oblivious and passed out drunk. Most dinner parties these days have respectable people who leave and drive home but yet they fall in to the .08 catergory. Stop being so rightous!!!

I am sorry to say, but you are being to overtly emotional on this issue. Perhaps there is some sensitivity to the mistake you made and the truth hurts per se'. Whatever the truth may be, sometimes parts of what is said strikes home and irritates the tender parts. Your best bet is to just ride the wave.

Immediatly my impression of the whole deal is that you feel .08 isn't drunk enough to not drive? If so, then by this same token, how could a law be passed for such a low rating? Further, how could IMBRA or VAWA be passed? (other than the law encapsulation technique that occured this time around)

Well there ARE studies. Many that show direct corelations to other studies and points of logical deductive reasoning to have proviso's in the law for something like this. Think of it like computer software, you hear all the time about "hackers" exploiting a hole in the code until it is patched with another law. Well in the code of law there are many holes, and the laws that are intended to patch the hole are generaly made with this kind of deductive reasoning. It is in fact even used sometimes to show proof of concept mathematical equasions such as if a=b and b=c then a=c. This just happens sometimes. IMBRA, and the VAWA is a "we're not messing around" law that intends to patch even the most ambiguous holes.

I suggest just dropping the issue, leave your pride at the door here, and open your heart and get to sharing your story.

Problem is that life is not a strictly mathematical equation. So A does not equal B nor B equal C nor etc.

Sometimes A and B = C or may never = C. Life is a lot more variable then a formula for figuring out the area of a Right Triangle.

For example there is supposedly a statistical perponderance of drug abusers that also commit domestic violence. Now the problem is the assumption is that there is a cause and effect. But this may very well not be the case. There is most likely some other problem that is causing both addiction and violence antisocial behavior. So its not an A=B B=C therefore A=C problem. Its possible that A=C and B=C but never will A = B. Life just does not work that way.

And as far as your software analogy. This law still leaves gaping wholes that any hacker or wife abuser could drive the Budwiser Horses and Wagon through.

I guess when one leaves there pride at the door they should also burn the Bill of Rights and Constitution as well. Let us not be proud nor free. hmmm. Don't think so.

A better law would have been to increase funding for women's shelters, increase marriage conseling centers, and provide more assistance in substance abuse treatment.

[Imbra2005 0]

I agree that those studies do not show a cause/effect relationship. But that's not the point. The whole point of IMBRA is to arm the foreign spouse with critical information about their spouse -- information that is correlated with abuse -- not necessarily the cause of the abuse.

And what rights guaranteed you by the bill of rights or constitution are being violated here? and how?

Edited June 24, 2006 by Imbra2005

[pj1959us 0]

I don't quite understand the umbrage over the requirement to divulge convictions of THREE alcohol/drug convictions. That may or may not have any link whatsoever with domestic abuse, but it certainly shows a pattern of irresponsible behavior.

I'm neither pointing fingers at the OP (or anyone else) nor acting holier than thou and making judgments, but I don't feel it's inappropriate to ensure the SO is aware of this past history. I would certainly want to know.