Would Clare's Law decrease future domestic violence, in your opinion?

I doubt it. How would anyone know if abuse does goes down, if it was due to that law, or is violent crime trending down in spite of it? It looks as if the authors of this have assumed that there are no new assholes coming into new relationships no one has even heard of yet. I understand why a grieving parent would want to set something like this up, I really do, but he could be just trying to comfort himself into believing he’s doing something to help.
Here in the US if you have a few bucks you can use the internet to do a criminal background check on pretty much anyone. Not sure if that option is available anywhere else.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, unless the police are going to start screening applicants and providing referrals on dating websites.

How would it work, I wonder, that “HandsomeStud” will be vetted by police so that “CharmingFlower” can tell that he is or is not what he purports to be? I can’t see how this will work, unless “dating sites” are going to be totally transparent, with zero anonymity. That seems unlikely.

As for whether a person (whose name one learns in the course of time) has a record of various criminal offenses, that’s public record. There was a statement in the link you provided that she had “allegations” that the man had a history of violence against women. If it was true, and if he had convictions on that score, then it seems that the police would have been negligent to attempt to hide it. Also, as you say, if he only had “allegations” against him, then the police would never have a justification to pass that along as fact.

What effect have the many sex offender laws had so far , in USA, on sex offenses?

I’m always a little wary about blanket domestic abuse laws. I live in Connecticut and there is a certain domestic abuse law that exists in many states but CT deliberately has not adopted it for very good reasons. The law basically states that if police are called to a scene of a domestic disturbance and a person accuses a domestic partner of abuse, the police must take the accused into custody, even if no charges stick. On the face of it, this seems like a pretty good law. However, CT deliberately has not adopted it because often an abused person may fight back, even a little bit. If someone, man or woman, accuses his/her domestic partner of physically harming them, the police must take them into custody. This means that if a man beats his wife on a regular basis, but in this instance she defended herself, then he can accuse her of abuse and she would be arrested, even if she also accuses him of abuse and he is also arrested.

It is true that the majority of physical abusers are men, but in truth, I feel like it may be a much smaller majority than we know since so few men report being physically abused by their female partners and those who are are rarely taken seriously. There are too many factors to consider with a law like Clare’s Law. What if the man was deemed abusive because he stopped his female partner from doing something that potentially harmed himself, others or even herself, and in the process he hurt her? For example, if she was beating her children and he pulled her away from the kids. Depending on how roughly he did it, he could cause some physical harm to her, and thus be labelled an abuser even though he only hurt her because he was protecting her children. What if she flew at him, fists flying, and he grabbed her arms to stop her and in the process bruised her? It hardly makes sense to label him an abuser in these situations, but he probably would be. Hell, even totally innocuous incidents can be labelled as abuse if spun correctly. My boyfriend once accidentally gave me a fat lip because he brought his head up when I was leaning over him. Is it abuse? No. Might it seem like abuse? Yes.

So, in summation, no, I do not think that is a good law.

It would, in my opinion, only increase the police’/justice’ feeling of “well, we covered our ass beforehand /don’t say we didn’t warn you/at least we won’t get sued”.
And your point 3 makes sense to me, I never let myself lead by other people’s opinion/stories about persons that I newly acquainted.
I will find out myself and I trust my own judgement, so far it hasn’t failed.

If only by a bit. When 3 people you are drunk then one should go and sleep it off. But there’s always the situation when those 3 are drunk too and can’t tell the difference.
In any case someone might want to know a bit from the other person past and issues like this might bring some thoughts into consideration. And abuse cannot be described to well no matter how hard someone tries. Not to mention that violent language is abuse too or being rude toward a family member all day long.

And if one sums it all this could be a good thing if polished a bit. But until then it only sounds good but in fact it is not.

I don’t think it would really make a significant difference, really. Women, for complicated reasons, endure and tolerate abuse in their own “present,” generally for years before they leave an abuser or for years before they are killed by their abusers. Knowing a man’s past when abuse is happening in your own present really won’t make a difference. And if it might, by the time the authorities can warn a woman that the man she is seeing is a known abuser she will most likely have already seen the red flags and left him or already seen the red flags and ignored them or minimized them.

And I have some similar issues with you point #2. Being accused of abuse doesn’t mean you’ve actually committed abuse and having a clean record doesn’t necessarily mean you have never abused someone.

I don’t know how helpful these “named laws” are. They are usually kind of reactionary; an emotional reaction to some horrible crime that doesn’t necessarily get to the root problems that enabled the crime to happen in the first place.

Where could an abused person..,let’s say with three kids, go after they had had the partner arrested? If the police , as in some states, see “signs of physical abuse” and no one wishes to press charges, they arrest both parties and the children go to family and children’s services ( delightful place that it is, eh). Laws don’t “stop” any activity they only provide a reaction pattern – usually only a punitive pattern. No use for most of them myself. How, by a law is anything prevented?