A frequent commenter to this blog, one with philosophical leanings, pointed out recently that restraining orders personalize law.

His point is that where prior to the advent of restraining orders complaints of abuse would have been vetted and either rejected or acted upon by the police and district attorney based on the evident merits of those complaints’ allegations, today the middlemen whose scrutiny formerly provided a safeguard against false or frivolous allegations’ unjustly contaminating a defendant’s life have been removed from the equation.

A plaintiff now effectively determines what should merit the court’s intervention him- or herself merely by filling out a boilerplate form and leveling allegations in a brief interview with a judge, which allegations (especially if made by a woman) judges have been trained to all but accept unquestioningly.

A plaintiff, whose motives can hardly be expected to be free of bias and may be wholly malicious, preempts the roles of the police and district attorney and is furthermore entitled not only to communicate his or her allegations directly to a judge but to expect that the judge will accept those allegations at face value—in the complete absence, moreover, of any contradictory testimony or evidence from the defendant, who is also bypassed.

Due process, a constitutional guarantee, is skirted entirely: a person walks in off the street and says it; therefore it is so.

Loan officers at banks were as easily persuaded six years ago that anyone who strolled through the door should be given a loan. They observed the same turnstile policy commonly followed by the courts in the issuance of restraining orders. Applicants were happy, because they weren’t disappointed, and officers looked good, because they met their quotas.

The result of this policy was that one of the systems that hold together the fabric of our society was bankrupted.

Copyright © 2013 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com