“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)

As shields to deflect fists or bullets, court injunctions are no more effective than the paper they’re printed on. When they’re taken out for the purpose for which they were enacted—which they are about 20% of the time—they may even turn volatile situations into tragic ones, making the protection they afford iffy at best (to paraphrase Judge Raphaelson: trusting in them may get their applicants killed).

As instruments of malice, however, they can’t be beat.

Consider: The best you can hope for from a thug is that he’ll intimidate the target of your wrath (and maybe break an arm or a leg). Besides having to pay him, you hazard the possibility that he’ll brace you for hush money or rat you out and get you thrown in jail. The risk-to-benefit ratio isn’t favorable.

Swearing out a false restraining order fraudulently alleging violence or fear of violence has substantially more to recommend it:

1. It’s quick, easy, and painless (half an hour, tops);
2. You shame your victim and permanently foul his public record;
3. You get the nanny state to intimidate him for you;
4. You may induce him to get himself arrested and fired from his job if you can rile him sufficiently with a few well-honed aspersions;
5. And if he’s someone you share a home with, you can claim his property, custody of children and pets, and possession of the house to boot (he could even end up living out of garbage cans in a cardboard box).

This alternative neither risks nor costs you a thing—it’s all covered by the taxpayer—and you have the full and sympathetic support of the court and, by its mandate, the police.

A deal this good should be criminal. No, really.

Copyright © 2012 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com