You have no rights

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Rohrer 714, Mar 24, 2010.

  1. Rohrer 714
    Offline

    Rohrer 714 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    Think this can't happen in America?

    “Innocent until proven guilty” was the bedrock principle of American justice, until recently.

    The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 was signed into law in January 2006 to reauthorize the VAWA legislation originally passed in 1994.

    Since VAWA first became law, more than 660 state laws regarding domestic violence have been passed, and VAWA 2005 has had an even more pervasive effect on the rights of an accused man.

    All 50 states and the District of Columbia allow women to apply for Ex Parte orders of protection (Temporary Restraining Orders), which are almost always granted and most often extended or made permanent at subsequent hearings.

    Innocent Americans are being penalized based on false accusations which require no proof.

    Over one million men are arrested each year due to unproven allegations of domestic violence.

    The standard of evidence is extremely lax. All a woman has to do is state that she is "afraid", and the Clerk of the Court will file the TRO. After a judge rubberstamps the order, the man will be served.

    An order of protection:

    1. Prohibits the accused from contacting his accuser directly or indirectly in any manner;
    2. Forces the accused to move from a residence shared with the accuser even if the residence is the property of the accused;
    3. Orders the accused to stay at least 100 yards away from the accuser, her place of residence, and place of employment;
    4. Orders the accused to attend counseling; and
    5. Compels the accused to immediately surrender any firearms or ammunition he owns to the police.

    All of these actions take place immediately upon service of the order without the accused being given an opportunty to defend himself.

    These concerns are heightened in specialized domestic violence courts. Now, procedures have been devised to save complainants who might be in imminent danger, at the expense of defendants who could have been falsely accused.

    Referring to his experience in a domestic violence court, one New York attorney commented, “My client is guilty the minute he walks in the door.”

    Millions of restraining orders are issued each year, often without any allegation of physical violence by the complainant, who is usually identified as the "victim" in court documents.

    As a result, accused men (who are normally identified as "abusers" in the court's documents - even though they have been convisted of no crime) summarily lose access to their children, home, and financial assets with devastating consequences.

    Other attorneys have noticed these tendencies to refer to complainants as "victims," and accused men as "abusers" prior to any ajudication.

    As an alternative to using the criminal courts, some jurisdictions have created programs that issue restraining orders issued following bench trials in family courts.

    This practice of depriving a defendant of a jury trial and the other protections typically afforded a criminal defendant short-circuits due process.

    From the perspective of job security, a judge has much to lose and little to gain by ruling in favor of an accused man. If he rules against the defendant, and the defendant is really innocent, so what?

    The defendant’s life might be ruined for something he did not do, but who cares? There will be no headlines, no angry feminst activists protesting on the courthouse steps.

    One article in the William and Mary Law Review highlights the fact that “evidentiary standards for proving abuse have been so relaxed that any man who stands accused is considered guilty.”

    Unconvicted men's lives are being irreparably damaged by unproven (and often false) allegations, and billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2010
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,556
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,434
    :lol:

    You object to the VAWA?

    I think you've been taking too many Rohrer 714's. :lol:
     
  3. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    The other night where I live a bloke - who had a restraining order against him - walked up to his wife at a dinner in the convention centre and stabbed her to death. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty of murder. She's still dead though.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Rohrer 714
    Offline

    Rohrer 714 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    The two preceding posts underscore the assumption that any man accused of domestic violence is guilty, and seem to bear out the reality that an attempt to discuss the very real abuses of rights that these laws allow is condemned prima facie.

    In modern America, the mere accusation of domestic violence serves to stigmatize and demoralize a person.

    Every man is vulnerable to getting run through the wringer in this climate of bias.

    It becomes the modern-day equivalent of the old joke, “So when did you stop beating your wife?”

    A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court reviewed the domestic
    restraining orders issued in that state.

    That study found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence.

    Dorothy Wright, a New Jersey attorney and former board member of a women’s shelter, has estimated that 40%–50% of all restraining orders are requested solely as a legal maneuver.

    The Fourth Amendment affirms, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”.

    Your rights to be secure in your home and to be free from unreasonable seizure are violated by ex parte restraining orders.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2010
  5. Father Time
    Offline

    Father Time I'll be Still Alive

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,130
    Thanks Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +438
    Care to defend VAWA or point out how his criticisms of it are wrong?

    I don't know much about VAWA but I can't stand this type of deflection.
     
  6. Father Time
    Offline

    Father Time I'll be Still Alive

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,130
    Thanks Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +438
    So because one guy was a danger to the person giving a restraining order, all of them are?

    I'm sorry I don't understand your argument.

    Oh and fat lot of good the restraining order did.
     
  7. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    An ex republicans governors son did the same thing with a gun here in Lexington KY last year.
    He had a restraining order on him as well.
    They are thinking of making some of the ones with restraining orders on them wear tracking bracelets on their legs. I assume that the alleged victim would get a reciever that alarms if they are nearby?
     
  8. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Yes, in that case it tragically didn't stop him. And there have been a few others like it. But maybe there have been a few where the restraining order saved someone from harm. So my point is that it might just be necessary and the imposition it creates might also be necessary.
     
  9. Rohrer 714
    Offline

    Rohrer 714 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    The supposition that an unconstitutional law 'might' protect a potential victim from a crime by proactively stripping all men of their rights is repugnant to me.

    Ever see the film "Minority Report"?
     
  10. Rohrer 714
    Offline

    Rohrer 714 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    So you are saying it's OK to treat men like criminals because they MIGHT commit a crime?

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
     

Share This Page