Relationship violence is unacceptable and this law is a step in achieving that
Relationship violence is unacceptable.This law is a step in
achieving that goal, only in that it punishes those who violate it. Laws like
this do nothing to prevent violence, except may act as a slight deterrent.The real way to stop violence is to strengthen the moral character and
behavior standards of people, which has traditionally been the role and benefit
of strong families and religious faith. Sadly, both of these elements have been
denigrated, discouraged and disdained in recent years, and high rates of violent
crime, especially in certain segments of our society are clearly the result.
@ DN Subscriber 2: The facts do not support your statement. Violent crime has
actually decreased recently. The way to reduce relationship violence
is to make it socially unacceptable - which this law does.
Forgive my ignorance but honest question: can't you get a restraining order
on anyone who's harrassing or threatening you? So long as a judge thinks
it's a legitimate claim? Why was a special law needed?
@Danny It is government marketing. If we only enforced the myriad laws we
already have, instead of creating and touting new laws all the time, people
would soon realize that we don't need the tremendous heap of government
we're currently paying for.
@DN Subscriber 2Since Violence has been a part of all recorded human
written history, I think this law is a bigger help than your suggestion.
Dating should by like hunting. You can't do it unless you are trained for
safety and have been issued a permit. And violators of the rules have their
dating privileges suspended for five years. And if you think
I'm tough on dating, wait 'til I tell you my proposals for those who
want to marry and have children!
@ DNnewssubsciber2...Wow! You cannot be for real. Definitely read some juvenile
remarks you made in past but this one takes the cake! Was waiting for you to
somehow tie this all into Obamacare & some way mold into his fault.
Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo said he did not have a point of reference for the
data, but said "if the law prevents one serious incident from occurring,
it’s worthwhile.If this law enables more to abuse such laws...
if this law encourages people to always run to the State for relationship
issues... as something other than a last resort... then our community's our
family's are in danger.Abuse of the system is running rampant
these days.Causing the liberty of other's to be unduly stripped
from them.\There are many steps to be taken prior to rushing to the
big guns.If there be actual violence, physical or otherwise...then, such unacceptable behavior needs-be addressed.Yet, we must
also protect eachother from unwarranted encroachments into our personal lives by
the State.We must also protect the tax payers from those who would
defraud the state and use much needed resources designated to actual victims...
so that they might run headlong into the fight or flight syndrome.To allow such a resource to be abused is simply that, an abuse.
While it's clear that this law is needed for many people (and not just
women) who are trying to leave abusive relationships, I hope that it's
written so as to prevent its abuse. We had a client shortly before I retired
whose ex-girlfriend was seeking a restraining order against him. Since the
order, by its nature, would have prevented him from possessing a gun, and he
loved to hunt, he came to use to oppose it. In the course of preparing for the
hearing, we discovered that his ex-girlfriend had obtained similar restraining
orders against her six previous boyfriends, and she apparently considered this
to be "breaking up insurance", "just in case". Fortunately, the
judge was tired of seeing her in his court and realized what she was doing. Not
only did he refuse to grant the order, but he also reviewed the previous orders
and revoked all but the first one.
Oh, dear, dear, dear.Every case starts with a temporary order, then
goes to a hearing where they decide if the allegations are strong enough to
enter a permanent order.So what these numbers REALLY tell us is that
thirty seven temporary orders were granted; but that after a hearing, only
fourteen of those accusers were deemed reliable enough to put a permanent order
in place.The REAL story here isn't fifty one safe women.
It's twenty-three lives brought to a screeching halt by false accusations,
which outnumber the substantiated petitions by nearly a two-to-one ratio.
@Danny and Clinton. There is a difference between restraining order and
protective orders. If you have a restraining order and call the cops, they
can't really do anything because it is a civil matter that you would have
to take back to court on the violation. With a protective order, the cops can
arrest the violator on the spot and the violation is an actual crime.
bravo 'doug s.'
Now I will NEVER get a date.
The real issue is that judges issue this type of order way way to leniently. I
got one against my ex-mother in law (a stalking injunction) for 8 counts of
criminal stalking. It could have been more but that was all I needed. 1 year
later she filed for one against me for 2 incidents where she committed custodial
interference against me... one in 2008 and one last spring. In August she filed
in the first district and was denied. Judge up there wrote right on the
application that "This does not constitute stalking". She then filed for
one in the 4th district with the same documentation. The judge allowed it. I
have appealed. Then my second wife of 19 months (I was stupid, I was her 4th)
filed for divorce and having gone through the process with me, she filed. Had I
been convicted I would be a felon which would mean that I had no more job. Thus
I capitulated in the divorce and she got everything. My crime... I wrote a
friend of hers and her sister asking them to talk to her about reconciliation as
she would not talk to me any more about it.
@ Eliyahu - Pleasant Grove, UT - "While it's clear that this law is
needed for many people (and not just women) who are trying to leave abusive
relationships, I hope that it's written so as to prevent its abuse. We had
a client shortly before I retired whose ex-girlfriend was seeking a restraining
order against him. Since the order, by its nature, would have prevented him from
possessing a gun, and he loved to hunt, he came to use to oppose it. In the
course of preparing for the hearing, we discovered that his ex-girlfriend had
obtained similar restraining orders against her six previous boyfriends, and she
apparently considered this to be "breaking up insurance", "just in
case". Fortunately, the judge was tired of seeing her in his court and
realized what she was doing. Not only did he refuse to grant the order, but he
also reviewed the previous orders and revoked all but the first one."Now THAT is "justice"! :-)
@Doug S Who says they were all unwarranted? The other examples of abusing the
system for spite or revenge of a jilted partner make me sick since there are
truly battered women and men that need such laws in place. In the late
70's and 80's I was a battered woman, the police did nothing. Even
after I got away from him and in my own home he stalked me and destroyed my
property and the property (car tires) of most anyone who he saw visiting my
home. Nothing was done to him. It only stopped when I made it stop. How? I
waited in my bed feigning sleep one nite when I knew he was on a rampage and
sure enough he entered my home and came to attack me while "sleeping".
I came out of bed with a lead pipe swinging at his head and neck and stomach.
Beat him to where he spent a week in the hospital. 105 pound woman vs a 185
man. The cops who responded to HIS calls for help laughed and said "oops
looks like you had a bad fall dude" That was the end of my abuse.