Hacker News Reader

Comment by version_five | Hacker News Reader

That's the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" and it should be taken much more seriously as a concept.

I think domestic violence (alone, really) gets special treatment, because often there is simply not time to adjudicate the issue with full due process, so they usually grant ex-parte TROs for a few weeks and give the alleged abuser a hearing date/time to dispute the allegations.

I don't believe a TRO is really proof of any kind of guilt and nobody should be fired because one is filed, but I'm not sure that level of nuance gets through.

EDIT: Reading again, sounds like the guy probably filed some kind of police report against her and got the DA to file proper charges, which is a whole other can of worms, in which case I agree on both counts.

In theory, at least, TROs are minimum-harm practice. If two people can't get along, separate them.

What I'd suggest as a balancing mechanism to avoid the abuses which, yes, do in fact happen by that means, is to make the orders mutual. That is, neither party may come in contact with, approach, or communicate with the other, and both are subject to further legal restrictions for violating those terms.

After reading up on it, it was a bit of both. They either know how to game the system or got lucky they filed a lot of death threats while the tro is pending and Then followed up with more after. The main legal error was that a judge granted a final restraining order based on he said she said. They then filed many more claims of death threats. The da did drop the charges due to lack of evidence, but the criminal switched jurisdictions to keep playing their game

I would like to add that "innocent until proven guilty", like "free speech", shouldn't just apply to state action and should be a cultural norm; both of which have been regrettably slipping as of late.

In cases like the one in TFA, its a little difficult to follow "innocent until proven guilty" because both parties are claiming the other is guilty of something actionable. If the accusations are mild or the consequences are minor, then just restraining orders etc. can do the trick. But if I'm claiming that my partner is endangering our kids or my life, and my partner is alleging the same, or even just that I'm lying, "innocent until proven guilty" is non-trivial to adopt.

The slow speed of the judicial system is not conducive to "innocent until proven guilty", since lots of people are in limbo at any given time.

A slow judicial system drives up the cost of the innocent getting a good legal defense. It also delays consideration of new evidence that can exonerate the innocent that have been convicted.

The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution recognizes the need for judicial speed, even if court cases have effectively gutted that amendment (like the 4th with civil asset forfeiture).

Red Flag Laws, that people like to advocate for regarding firearms and the 2nd Amendment, are so very controversial because of this very avenue of abuse.

A mere accusation can deny someone their constitutional rights, in additional to other costs such as losing their job.

We can't have a system were a mere unsubstantiated accusation has legal consequences.

Having the militia be well-regulated would also help here.

There is a similar problem with the handling of homeless as far as I know. Getting a 'mentally-ill' person off the street before they do damage to others requires the state to define a mental and behavioral baseline for ones right to self-determination.

Screwing that one up also sends us back to a really ugly place.

Except on youtube or anywhere else where dmca applies.

> A mere accusation can deny someone their constitutional rights

Specifically the 2nd amendment… for a time.

I don’t really have a problem with that as far as it’s impermanence goes.

The rest is difficult due to the nature of domestic disputes. I don’t have a good solution there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com