After listening to a lecture on violence in hockey by Kevin Young, professor of sociology at the University of Calgary, it became clear that perhaps “our” game does condone violence.

The over-whelming justification of violence in hockey stems from a reasonable assumption of risk on behalf of the players involved.
In short, players accept that if they get hurt, that’s just a part of the game.
Young presented the case of Ian Strathern, who suffered a broken spine when he collided with an opposing player and lived the remainder of his life as a paraplegic. This instance may not be the norm for organized hockey; however the potential for serious, life-threatening injury does exist.
If the essence of hockey is not to injure, but to score a goal, then why attempt to injure someone as a means of getting a goal?
There are many arguments citing that violence in hockey is the result of boys just being boys. But we would have serious issues if we applied the same principle to domestic violence. The feeling being that we tend to make exceptions with sports as being in a world of its own.
As with any other sport in the world, the most successful and exciting players are the ones who are the most skilled. Those are the players that people will pay money to go see. 
If there is an attraction to skill, and there seems to be with the last two Stanley Cup champions coming from teams loaded with skill, than why dress a player who will see 2:34 of ice-time per game?
The reason some coaches dress guys like that is to ensure that no liberties are taken with their most prized, high-skilled players. However, when and where has there been a time when policing ourselves has worked out for us?