“If there is one theme that emerges from all of the recommendations in this report, it is vigilance—everyone involved in the criminal justice system must be constantly on guard against the factors that can contribute to miscarriages of justice….”
—Canadian Department of Justice (2005)
It’s more than a little disturbing to this writer that a “Report on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice” has to recommend that the Canadian justice system exercise vigilance. You wouldn’t think an external audit would have to emphasize the importance of guardedness against errors that destroy lives.
Yet this recommendation is one that the U.S. justice system and many others are no less in urgent need of heeding.
Disturbing, also, are that the phrase miscarriages of justice is typically only applied to wrongful criminal convictions and that false allegations are discounted as contributing significantly to the number of miscarriages of justice, when in fact they’re responsible for the majority of them. Fraudulent claims are certainly unexceptional in civil proceedings, and the successes of fraudulent claims in civil court are just as much miscarriages of justice as failures of the system that result in false criminal convictions are.
Regarding civil restraining order adjudications, which number in the millions each year and which are singularly distinguished for their lack of vigilance against fraudulent claims, it may be more useful to point out that their results often equate with convictions in the tolls they exact (if not dramatically exceed them) than to argue that rulings in such cases should be no less the products of painstaking deliberation than rulings in criminal cases should be. If the net consequences are on a par with each other, so too should be the degree of vigilant scrutiny brought to bear on each.
Consider these excerpts from recent accounts on the e-petition “Stop False Allegations of Domestic Violence.” Italics are added.
“I have been falsely accused of domestic violence. I lost my home and my kids, and haven’t been convicted of a crime.”
“My whole career in law enforcement and EMS was ruined in a matter of minutes—all for a false accusation. My present work privileges are suspended from the medical field, and I am bound to the state pending trial for something I did not do….”
“This signature is on behalf of my brother…. He lost everything: the house that was his long before the marriage, all his belongings, but most of all his girls. It is so not fair. He is a victim…of a corrupt judicial system.”
Miscarriages of justice can occur even when the falsely accused aren’t convicted of anything, and as stories like these stress (and such stories are legion), the consequences can be life-sundering.
A noteworthy component of the report quoted in the epigraph is its recommendations to agents of the justice system on how to improve their job performance. It’s assumed by those who’ve been victimized by abuse of legal process that judges could do their jobs right if they wanted, but choose not to. The truth, though, is that they, like everyone else, need to have their failings pointed out to them.
Arguments made to trial judges often include definitions of words. Since this post is an argument, I’ll conclude it with some:
ethics, rules of right and wrong;
deprivation, the act of taking away by force;
vigilance, watchfulness, alertness, or caution;
miscarriage, a failure.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
The civil restraining order process is little less than harassment. Although a petitioner may not be aware of that at the time, I do not believe the petitioner’s ignorance excuses him or her. First off, there is “the problem of induction.”
“The problem of induction” is something a person can Google. Just because you get a piece of paper that may take away an individual’s gun rights or generate some kind of legal threat, that does not gaurantee that person will not kill you tomorrow, violate the order, or so on. The piece of paper brings forth consequences. However, having the piece of paper does not guarantee that the alleged violater will have any evidence against him or her of his or her alleged violation.
As such, it’s a waste of time. Many people file restraining orders with false if not irrelevant allegations. So, it has the end product of harassing an individual. And because many of the allegations may not have to do with the legal issue at hand, such as domestic violence allegations, it’s as if someone is blaming someone for violation his or her “personal law,” yet totally disregarding the philosophy of law in having provided someone with your law before blaming them for breaking it. Combined with ex post facto laws based on the “reasonable person,” such as assault or stalking laws, many people who have restraining orders placed on them end-up getting harassed by a legal system. However, the unfortunate thing, and I think this happens, is that many petitioners are ignorant of the law. However, because ignorance is no excuse for the law, it’s fair enough for any respondent to hold a petitioner accountable for his or her ignorance and blame that person for abusing the process, malicious prosecution, and/or generating vexatious litigation.
Restraining orders are little less than a way for people to vent out feelings of anger and resentment toward someone. They don’t offer security, and they offer a false sense of security. Any petitioner can go online and find a number of individuals who have been murdered after filing for a restraining order. The truth is, a petition is better off engaging in self-defense due to the problem of induction rather than relying on the legal system. Although a petitioner might attempt to use a restraining order as a form of self-defense, it truly is moot against a dangerous perpetrator.
With the above listed, the restraining order process is a process of harassing a respondent whether the petitioner is knowledgable of that or not. The entire process is groundless. A petitioner may be safer with the alleged defendant locked behind bars. Unless the defendant can escape, the defendant will be unable to directly harm the alleged victim. So, yes, a criminal rather civil response is more appropriate in terms of self-defense, despite my disdain for the legal system as a philosopher.
LikeLike
With the above said, it may make more sense for a petitioner to not harass the alleged perpetrator. Because the whole process is harassment toward a respondent anyway, it will more than likely serve to anger the respondent. A petitioner will more than likely find more resolve in self-defense. However, many individuals, such as married couples soon-to-be divorced will file for restraining orders in an attempt to get someone out of the house and/or get the kids as a way of fighting for resources. Thus, it tends to be used as a tool of economic harassment rather than security.
LikeLike
I was just contacted by a woman who got a restraining order because she felt harassed and had a restraining order petitioned against her by the harasser to harass her more. Others are harassed by restraining orders and get restraining orders against their harassers to try to counteract the harassment.
I think (as usual) you may be onto something….
LikeLike