“Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders.”
—Justice Milton Raphaelson (upon his retirement)
There’s no denying that the restraining order is a forceful instrument and a nasty one to be on the receiving end of, especially when the behaviors alleged against you are trumped up. The question is, what good are restraining orders when they’re used legitimately?
Dr. Charles Corry, president of the Equal Justice Foundation, has compiled a horror-show list of examples in support of his thesis that court orders that purport to protect women only exacerbate the male rage they promise to defuse or avert.
In The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker cites two government investigations that support Corry’s conclusions: “In a study of 179 stalking cases sponsored by the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, about half of the victims who had sought restraining orders felt their cases were worsened by them. In a study done for the U.S. Department of Justice, researchers concluded that restraining orders were ‘ineffective in stopping physical violence.’” De Becker, whose book was published 16 years ago, offers this perspective: “Lawyers, police, TV newspeople, counselors, psychologists, and even some victims’ advocates recommend restraining orders wholesale. They are a growth industry in this country. We should, perhaps, consider putting them on the New York Stock Exchange, but we should stop telling people that a piece of paper will automatically protect them, because…it may do the opposite.”
How many women who trusted in the protection of restraining orders, I wonder, have been maimed, lamed, scarred, or killed since de Becker’s book was printed?
The restraining order’s advent arose in response to feminist outcry for legislative redress of domestic violence. It has since become a judicial quick fix for any complaint involving an allegation of harassment or even vague apprehension. Its original purpose, one for which it has never adequately served, has been obscured; and the ends to which it’s often wielded today are starkly less sympathetic.
Feminist scholars Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Daphne Patai have publicly criticized the feminist influence that squelches a reasoned consideration of these issues; and conservative commentator Phyllis Schlafly has published columns openly deriding the value and validity of restraining orders and the judicial processes from which they originate.
(I was unsurprised to find a page on Wikipedia entitled, “Restraining order abuse,” that had been deleted. The explanation for its removal reads, “No indication that this article…covers a notable and/or neutral topic.” A related article, “Restraining order,” did acknowledge that abuse of restraining orders “is claimed to be widespread.” That verbiage has been redacted. When I began this blog in 2011, it included these stats, also, which have since been edited out: “A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court that reviewed domestic restraining orders issued in the state found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence [note that over 15 years have gone by since then]. Similarly a West Virginia study found eight out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false.” Once you could find an eHow article explaining, “How to Avoid Becoming a Victim of Restraining Order Abuse.” Its URL now redirects to “How to Get a Harassment Restraining Order in Chicago.”)
My own contempt for restraining order laws and how they’re applied couldn’t be keener. But I’m also angry for women legitimately at risk. Not only are restraining orders prone to casual abuse—making them a mockery—they don’t answer the problem for which they were enacted.
The dominant political influence in the perpetuation of the status quo in all matters related to restraining order legislation is that exerted by dogmatic feminists (a.k.a. “gender feminists”). And money talks. Feminism’s representatives have received billions in federal funding under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). A cynic might propose that the interests of the cause are being protected over the welfare of the victims of restraining orders, male and female.
If vengeance for past injustices and leverage over men are feminists’ intent, then defense of current restraining order policies certainly has a lot to recommend it (just ask any attorney who practices family law). Here’s where honest self-examination of motives by feminists, specifically those of the academic stripe (a.k.a. “The Sorority”), is due.
Feminists should realize, being in the main acutely intelligent women, that sexual discrimination and role reversals—however spitefully gratifying they may be—don’t signify an advance toward gender equality but rather a resignation to its unattainability that parades as social progress. Encouraging women to crouch behind the legs of parental policies, policies both biased and in some cases dangerously or even fatally ineffectual, isn’t encouraging them to stand on their own two feet. Feminist used to mean brassy and independent.
Let’s be clear here: assault is already a crime. The answer to it is a barred cage.
Let’s be honest, too. The common function of restraining orders is tactical terrorism. They don’t empower women; they just diminish men (and feminist and judicial credibility). They’re exploited as expedients—and often for ends ulterior to the ones their petitioners profess.
Turnabout may be fair play, but it’s still just gamesmanship that we’re talking about, not equity. If feminists are sincere when they say they want to be taken seriously, their aim should be nobler than dominance of the sandbox by baseball bat.
You know something’s gone very wrong when the question becomes, who’s battering whom?
Copyright © 2013 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Here is a great essay on individual political philosophies and validity of law: http://www.yellowpigs.net/philosophy/valid_law
Restraining orders function to do what they state. However, that does not mean that they will not be broken. It does not mean that they will resolve a dispute. However, it tends to be the case that the dispute is resolved by putting a wall (the restraining order) between the two individuals. In such, the judge is resolving the dispute, but it does not mean that the judge truly believes it is the correct way to resolve a dispute, thus it may become utilitarian until the “next best thing” is available.
LikeLike
Something to keep in mind is that restraining orders tend to “personalize” law. They generate a “personalized law,” so that individuals may discriminate against one another. However, individuals tend to lack the education and sophistication that police and the district attorney has. As such, an issue that is petty can automatically became a serious issue. This personalized law, as I believe, has been developed by the government to generate contention between members of society.
Before these restraining order injunctions came about, it was up to the police and the district attorney to move forth prosecution. The police investigate crimes, and the district attorney helps prosecute crimes. If something did not appear to be severe, deserving punishment, and a problem to society or its individuals, it was brushed off.
In comes restraining orders.
Yes, restraining orders can help an individual develop criminal allegations against another individual in civil court. However, a judge generally has the power to rule over simple things, such as harassment, whereby a bench trial can occur. Many other things, such as assault, are criminal allegations, whereby a person is granted a right to a jury.
It is the right to a jury that has become degenerated throughout these proceedings. As such, members of society have been allowed to attack one another without any observation of a “reasonable person” standard. The judge, no longer impartial, becomes the reasonable person.
Personalized law is what these restraining orders have come to represent. Before, individuals have been more worried about having their own political philosophies on issues, such as speech. Now, the government has found ways to enable others from different political schools of philosophy to attack others, as though to generate suppression and silence of varying political ideals.
It is this barratry from the court judges that has become more problematic over time, generating contention amongst members of the republic, that has begun to destroy lives more and more.
I’ve observed various petitions from individuals that have been passed through the eyes of court judges. Furthermore, I’ve developed an enhanced study of law. I’ve come to understand that there is definitely a way to analyze the petitioner’s state of mind during an ex parte proceeding, the validity of the allegations against the respondent, and whether or not the petition holds any weight. For instance, “threat assessment” or threat analysis. Whether or not a threat is a true threat, whereby wilful intent exists. These judges, and I’m sure of it, hold the ability to ask the petitioner, “Do you believe that he is really going to do what he threatened? Did you believe that?”
And I’m sure the judges hold the ability to ask the petitioner about the various elements to the criminal allegations the petitioner develops in civil court. And it is that the judges do, indeed, hold knowledge of civil and criminal law, that they could easily filter out a petition and the petitioner for intentionally false statements of fact, false allegations of abuse, and a false need for a restraining order. And sure, the judge could easily ask questions related to the elements for allegations in the petition, cunningly attempting to deceive the petitioner into making a mistake or slipping up on an allegation, as though to determine whether or not the allegations hold elemental validity. Such sophistry would be truth-seeking.
Nonetheless, it often appears that the judges, themselves, pass the burden onto the respondent, for which the respondent may or may not have a training in civil or criminal law in order to fight the allegations, examine their validity, and determine whether or not fraudulent statements of fact are occurring. It is such sophistry and more that the legal system, the judges, allow and continue that causes contention and a burden on the public, thus leading to further unnecessary contention.
LikeLike
You make really excellent points.
Acknowledgment of abuses and frauds in this process tends to follow a familiar policy: see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, etc.
LikeLike
Here’s a recent comment to the petition that the last hyperlink in this editorial leads to:
This petition had fewer than 3,000 signatures two years ago when I came across it. Today its number of signers is nearing four times that.
LikeLike