Who's to say what constitutes "abuse? " Can't it change all the time? Can't it be expanded when convenient or desired? Specifically when not tangible, Like in the case of not physical? A policy like this would set a dangerous precedent. Could easily lead to arbitrarily criminalizing all forms of speech, Opinions, And thoughts deemed "abusive. " Once at that point, Authoritative and oppressive regimes are close behind.
I do not think that non-physical abuse should be a crime, Because I believe traditionally the police are here to keep people safe, Not happy, I think people should only be prosecuted for things like murder, Theft, Vandelism, Rape, Physical abuse, Etcetera, Not breach of the peace, Non-physical abuse, Harassment, Etcetera, I think that banning non-physical abuse is like banning a movie you do not like for example, And some people like being shouted at for example, And just because you do not like one thing, Does not mean everything you do not like should be abolished. I think ragers should be put in a psychiatric hospital instead of jail and have psychiatric paramedics as the (first) respondants instead of the police. Also, People could have serious mental illnesses like Bipolar Disorder (BPD), Schizophrenia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Etcetera, And anger is complicated, So punishment could make the person who is being punished more angry. Also, I do not liike people going to jail for public order offences. Do I think noon-physical abuse should be a crime? No.