What’s Wrong with the Protective Order Policy “Better Safe than Sorry”?

TALKING BACK to restraining orders


“I was wondering if you have a rebuttal to the argument that restraining orders should be granted based on little evidence, because it’s ‘[b]etter [to be] safe than sorry.’”

—Recent query

The question implicit in the epigraph is this: What’s wrong with the policy “better safe than sorry”?

The questioner refers to the judicial practice, long inculcated, of taking complaints of fear on faith and issuing protective orders “just in case.” Appreciate that these protective orders may be based on no substantial evidence and are effectively “mini-criminal statutes.” Their violation, real or alleged, leads to criminal prosecution. They are custom-tailored laws applied to individual citizens about whom the court knows nothing but is willing to presume the worst—and whether they’re violated or not, they may be accompanied by a host of privations like loss of access to home, family, property, and money (and even the…

View original post 394 more words

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s