Why not "intimate partner abuse insurance"?
Far more women in the United States are victims of domestic violence than are injured in car accidents each year. Using information provided by the Centers for Disease Control and the insurance industry the numbers aren't even close -- battering outstrips crashes roughly two to one. It begs the question why states require car insurance but not intimate partner abuse insurance. Perhaps no law maker's thought of how useful the benefit would be to a victim assaulted by their so-called loved one.
Those folks driven into homelessness as they flee their abuser could argue that the money would be pretty darned handy as they try to provide safety for themselves and -- in many cases -- their children. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless 2007 fact sheet, 22% of parents seeking shelter were fleeing domestic violence.
If there were a payout for these folks the insurance companies might solve problems the government seems incapable of fixing. First of all the abuser's premiums would go up which would punish him or her for beating up their intimate partner or kid. Considering how few penalties there are for abusers this might add a layer of deterrent for someone who otherwise sees no downside to their violent actions. At the National Institute of Justice website you can learn some chilling facts about domestic violence, arrest rates, and conviction rates. For example an alleged abuser is 70% less likely to be convicted if he or she is white. And only about 25% of abusers are arrested if they flee the scene when the cops are called. So if you're white and "hit and run" you only have about a 1 in 12 chance of any real consequence.
Imagine is the stats were that lousy on car accidents and 11 out of 12 times folks had to pay for damage they didn't cause.