Hacker News Reader

Comment by 15155 | Hacker News Reader

> A "real" one is issued by a judge after interviewing both parties

A judge who doesn't want something bad to happen, under any circumstances. Therefore, they are extremely likely just to issue a PPO "just because."

> The real ones though are very reliable indicators that something fucked up went down.

TPOs/PPOs are absolutely not reliable: In most states, they are civil and issued subject to a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence is not subject to any verification or real evidentiary standards: you could fake text message screenshots all day long and net a PPO before you ever had an issue with perjury.

FWIW: someone with ill/violent intent couldn't care less about a random status violation that would pale in comparative severity to whatever other crime they wanted to commit.

View on HN

> FWIW: someone with ill/violent intent couldn't care less about a random status violation that would pale in comparative severity to whatever other crime they wanted to commit.

Violence in general and domestic violence especially are not always premeditated. What starts as an attempt by the abuser to hash things out can devolve into violence. A protective order can stop abusers from making the attempt in the first place, and when there is an attempt they can help the victim get more immediate help from law enforcement.

And of course nothing calms an abuser down like being set loose without a proper conviction, now with the ire of being dispossessed perhaps rightly of children and home.

Convict and jail them, with the full rights and penalties that go with that. Not this halfass paper shield against an otherwise free person.

> And of course nothing calms an abuser down like being set loose without a proper conviction, now with the ire of being dispossessed perhaps rightly of children and home.

Absolutely, some murders do seem to be triggered by protection orders. Presumably those cases would also occur when they are charged with a crime with cooperation from the victim. Are we going to instead consider pretrial detention for all cases of accused DV? And wouldn't that have all of the same issues with a lower standard of evidence but infringe even more on their rights?

Edit: I should clarify, when charges are filed we should consider pretrial detention. Unfortunately there are tons of reasons why DV victims often end up not wanting to press charges, or when someone is charged, not wanting to cooperate with prosecutors. Creating a situation where their only avenue for safety is pressing charges and cooperating with authorities creates its own set of issues and I feel they still deserve some level of safety even if they don't cooperate with criminal charges.

About everywhere I've lived police will absolutely arrest and book upon probable cause of criminal DV and they're often required to by law or policy. Yes we should absolutely consider pretrial detention. In my state refer to ARS 13-3883 and note it pertains to criminal justice instead of civil, which are significantly different with different standards than an ex parte civil order.

If someone is an abuser by all means take advantage of criminal justice system .

Note: not legal advice

> Are we going to consider pretrial detention for all cases of accused DV? And wouldn't that have all of the same issues with a lower standard of evidence but infringe even more on their rights?

I think we should.

The reason permanent orders are handed out like candy is because the judge wants to err on the side of caution. It's the same reason cops are more willing to use force when they have a taser than when they have a gun - there's no consequences for doing so.

Make there be real consequences for wrongly issuing a protection order, and you'll have fewer wrongly issued protection orders.

Is this opinion, professional expertise?

Why not just address the point? Its a casual opinion informed by basic research on domestic violence. I didn't feel like I needed a citation for "sometimes violence is impulsive" but here we are I guess.

Comparison of impulsive and premeditated perpetrators of intimate partner violence: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19039796/

Premeditated versus "passionate": patterns of homicide related to intimate partner violence: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30100045/

This is absolutely correct; not sure why you are being downvoted. TPOs are often issued without the targeted party being contacted or having a chance to defend themselves. PPOs tried in family court do not have a “reasonable doubt” requirement; they are regularly granted without substantive evidence or signs of physical abuse. No judge wants to read about somebody being killed after they denied the PO.

> not sure why you are being downvoted.

A quick graph analysis of the upvoters/downvoters on each comment and then clustering those across historical posts would probably elucidate this reason.

> No judge wants to read about somebody being killed after they denied the PO.

A judge or magistrate suffers no penalty for issuing a PPO but can suffer great ridicule when this exact situation happens: how is it not obvious that this would perversely inflate the numbers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com