3 ms·
> It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understo
by adekok 13y ago
> It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened.
The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high.
"My partner hit me!" And he's out. The courts are required to have a hearing within 30 days. Call the court and ask for that, and you'll be laughed at. 6 months later, the accusation is dropped.
In the mean time you've lost your house, kids, and likely your job.
DoS attacks aren't limited to computers. When we make it easier to do something... we get more of that behavior. Both good and bad.
- Joeboy 13y ago> The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high. And that is terrible, but I am not necessarily sure it is net terrible. To decide that, we would need to compare it with the terribleness of having no expedient legal recourse when you reasonably fear a partner might harass, assault or kill you. I've no doubt the implementation details suck though. Ninja edit: Words.
- adekok 13y ago> we would need to compare it with the terribleness of having no expedient legal recourse ... We largely have this data. Historically there were no TROs, and domestic violence was higher than it is today. However, there is no evidence that domestic violence is lower as a result of the "easy TRO" process. Instead, we see that incidence of all violent crimes have plunged in the past 30 years. I would wager that domestic violence rates fell in conjunction with overall violence rates. And that TROs had little, if any, impact on them. This would mean that TROs are likely to be net negative, because they add a new negative of false accusations.