|
|
||
Protective orders get attention of crime commission Date published: 6/23/2010
BY CHELYEN DAVIS RICHMOND --The state's crime commission is studying changes to protective orders, including adding dating relationships to the statute and requiring some people to wear GPS units.The commission's protective order work group met at the Capitol yesterday for its first meeting. It will look at half a dozen bills that were submitted in the 2010 legislative session, all of which offer revisions to the statutes covering protective orders. Two of the bills would add dating or intimate relationships to the protective order statute. It's an issue that got attention this spring, when U.Va. lacrosse player Yeardley Love was slain and her former boyfriend George Huguely was charged with murder. News reports noted that Love could not have gotten a protective order against Huguely because they were not married or cohabitating. Virginia law allows protective orders for family or household members--language that doesn't include people in dating relationships. People seeking a protective order against someone to whom they're not related can seek a protective order for stalking, but it's more difficult, and can also require them to take out a warrant, according to Del. Rob Bell, R-Albemarle, a prosecutor and member of the crime commission. The idea behind the bills is to allow people in dating relationships--like Love--to seek protective orders without having to jump through extra hoops. Members of the work group yesterday talked about how to do that without making the statute so broad that police would be overwhelmed, and without giving the same weight to, say, a trespassing case as is given to a serious domestic assault. "You're trying to avoid turning small issues into big issues," Bell said. Del. Ward Armstrong, D-Martinsville, agreed. "All of us in the General Assembly are looking for ways to curtail physical aggression," he said. "We're trying to avoid a Yeardley Love situation from happening again." A representative from the state police said the police database has a daily average of more than 17,000 protective orders. Some members of the work group suggested expanding the language beyond dating relationships, since violence can also happen between friends, or in the workplace. "I'm not sure we want to tie our judges' hands by the words 'dating' or 'relationship,'" said Glenn Croshaw, a crime commission member. "What difference does it make if they're best friends, intimate or dating, if they're a threat to the other person?"
100% correct in your observation. This one believes the so-called protective orders are frequently misused because some woman is teed off and wants to work spite. Some years back, I volunteered at a Domestic Violence shelter and found myself in a situation where a woman was the guilty party but accused and swore out a warrant on the man. Fortunately, she was EASILY proven to be a liar. I suspected a lot of the cases were like that one but not always corrected. People ARE abused but people also lie. Sad
tightening the ease to how one could get a restraining order offers up more abuse of the privilege AND a tighter leash on just about anyone (unless one is a shut-in) in the way of social discord. The legal precedent this may set is rather chilling (not for stalkers) and GPS-tracking on men because of a restraining order??? What's next...GPS implants for a guy who pissed off his Fiancee? Come on, this sort of thing is tyranny wrapped in a safety blanket.
I find it sadly ironic that the government and the violence prevention activists, expect a person with muder, mayhem, and/or vengence on their mind, will let a piece of paper stop them. The worst part is that the victim actually is convinced by them that the PO will protect them or that the police can get there in time to protect them. A PO is just a piece of paper that further inflames the anger and violent intent of the offender.
How many of "us all" stalk and harass others? Not many, but the need is there for the few that do.
yes, they need to work BOTH WAYS!
Though I am sympathetic to people who are truly stalked and/or attacked (I myself have had a female fan of my books stalk me) but I realize the slippery slope of any government (state or federal) infringing on the freedoms of one class (this case mostly men!) in order to "protect" another class (i.e. women). Yes, life is a precarious and dangerous thing sports-fans...but do you wish to lock us all in a kennel just so a few others may feel more "secure"?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
