No one in this country expects Prime Minister Rowley to dictate their choice in men. Nor is there an expectation that he, physically, can stop an abuser bent on shedding blood.
What this country does expect is a prime minister who can convince us that he is capable of taking decisive action to keep us safe and stem the flow of blood.
Prime Minister Rowley may have had a knee-jerk reaction when he told a public gathering at an event broadcast by state media, "You are calling on the Prime Minister to help. I'm not in your bedroom, or in your choice of men."
For the victims of domestic violence and many others, that brief retort undermined confidence in the policy direction of the state.
According to Dr Rowley, approximately one third of the murders in the last month were classed "domestic." That means 17 people died in domestic disputes. The police service says the PM's numbers are "generally correct."
If numbers like these are going to become standard to desensitised security agencies, then our problem isn't with our choice in men and who we let into our bedrooms–our problem is with the choice in leaders at state security agencies and those we let into the halls of power.
Classifying a murder as "domestic" absolves neither the Prime Minister nor the police from responsibility.
It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that there are systems, policies and structures in place to inspire public trust and confidence in law enforcement.
It is the duty of good leaders to ensure that those appointed to public office are held accountable for their failure to produce results. It is also the duty of our leaders to inspire confidence not just through staged conversations with the public, but through tangible actions.
In this case, good leadership would demand that police reports are taken seriously, that protection orders are upheld by law enforcement, that signs of violence are documented and questioned in hospitals, schools, places of work and in our communities.
If we are to take National Security Minister Edmund Dillon at his word in his plan to "make criminals uncomfortable," our policy toward all levels of crime and violence must be consistent.
The PM, the National Security Minister and the Attorney General all spoke eloquently to the well-rehearsed anti-crime script, explaining to the public all the challenges they are facing.
The bottom line, though, is that this country needs to see results. Explanations and excuses don't buy much time.
There is no doubt that it is a good idea for any prime minister to engage in conversations regularly with the people.
Dr Rowley lost some ground in the last few elections and if his intention is to reconnect with the people he serves, conversations, especially about crime and violence, are a step in the right direction.
The tone of these conversations, however, is what will determine support, inspire confidence or cause us to lose faith.
On Monday night the Prime Minister admitted that he was "watching in anger" as the crime and violence continue.
Our people are, too.