Comments on: Abuse of Temporary Restraining Orders Endangers Real Victims http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/12/29/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: David Marhoffer http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/12/29/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/comment-page-1/#comment-64 David Marhoffer Thu, 05 Jan 2006 03:21:01 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/#comment-64 At the justice court level, injunctions against harassment and orders of protection are given out routinely and presumptively. The institutional reason clearly is that no justice of the peace wants to be the one who did not issue one and, as a result, a battered woman was killed or hurt. There is great temptation in arguing that any restriction on freedom is justified if it saves but a single life. However, as Frederic Bastiat has amply shown, one cannot ignore the hidden societal/economic costs. A person who is notified that an order of protection was taken out against him/her, is, by federal law, a prohibited possessor of firearms. Anyone's Second Amendment rights can, thus, be deprived by a vengeful ex-lover, an unreasonable neighbor, or a complete stranger who fills out an injunction against harassment and makes outlandish allegations. Computers in police cruisers can now access justice court records. A license plate check will reveal that the driver has an order of protection against him/her. The officer will be very wary in approaching the vehicle and, in some cases, with tragic results. Orders of protection/injunctions against harassment are a double-edged sword. To see only the benefits without considering the costs is dangerous. At the justice court level, injunctions against harassment and orders of protection are given out routinely and presumptively. The institutional reason clearly is that no justice of the peace wants to be the one who did not issue one and, as a result, a battered woman was killed or hurt.

There is great temptation in arguing that any restriction on freedom is justified if it saves but a single life. However, as Frederic Bastiat has amply shown, one cannot ignore the hidden societal/economic costs.

A person who is notified that an order of protection was taken out against him/her, is, by federal law, a prohibited possessor of firearms. Anyone’s Second Amendment rights can, thus, be deprived by a vengeful ex-lover, an unreasonable neighbor, or a complete stranger who fills out an injunction against harassment and makes outlandish allegations.

Computers in police cruisers can now access justice court records. A license plate check will reveal that the driver has an order of protection against him/her. The officer will be very wary in approaching the vehicle and, in some cases, with tragic results.

Orders of protection/injunctions against harassment are a double-edged sword. To see only the benefits without considering the costs is dangerous.

]]> By: John Waters http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/12/29/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/comment-page-1/#comment-51 John Waters Tue, 03 Jan 2006 01:18:33 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/#comment-51 Issuing injuctive relief without notice, evidence, hearing or representation deprives those so attacked of their rights protected by our constitution (but not our judges). Issuing injuctive relief without notice, evidence, hearing or representation deprives those so
attacked of their rights protected by our constitution (but not our judges).

]]> By: Dan Slayton http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/12/29/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Dan Slayton Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:18:24 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/#comment-35 Ms. McElroy has written a very interesting anecdotal commentary. Long on a few personal examples but short on logic and facts. One has to believe that given her expressed position that were a judge to deny a TRO or Order of Protection and the applicant was then hurt or killed, she would express how a lack of compassion by the judiciary for victims of domestic violence and/or abuse is endangering victims. It appears her position advocates the dream: Judges who know exactly which TRO's to issue and which to deny. This, unfortunately, it not reality. She creates a false impression that TRO's across the country are issued like candy bars out of vending machines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Interestingly she provides no data to support this position. The fact is, judges face credibility and security issues every time a person seeks an order of protection. The fact that judges are asked to make these decisions should not be the subject of anecdotal rebuke. Rather it should be the subject of realistic appraisal as to whether other means of protecting "real victims" exist or whether we must accept the process we have today. Ms. McElroy has written a very interesting anecdotal commentary. Long on a few personal examples but short on logic and facts. One has to believe that given her expressed position that were a judge to deny a TRO or Order of Protection and the applicant was then hurt or killed, she would express how a lack of compassion by the judiciary for victims of domestic violence and/or abuse is endangering victims. It appears her position advocates the dream: Judges who know exactly which TRO’s to issue and which to deny. This, unfortunately, it not reality. She creates a false impression that TRO’s across the country are issued like candy bars out of vending machines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Interestingly she provides no data to support this position. The fact is, judges face credibility and security issues every time a person seeks an order of protection. The fact that judges are asked to make these decisions should not be the subject of anecdotal rebuke. Rather it should be the subject of realistic appraisal as to whether other means of protecting “real victims” exist or whether we must accept the process we have today.

]]>