Erring on the Side of Hidden Harm: The Granting of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders
Author(s) -
David N. Heleniak
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
partner abuse
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.505
H-Index - 6
eISSN - 1946-6579
pISSN - 1946-6560
DOI - 10.1891/1946-6560.1.2.220
Subject(s) - harm , order (exchange) , psychology , domestic violence , phrase , criminology , great rift , suicide prevention , law , poison control , social psychology , political science , medical emergency , medicine , business , computer science , physics , finance , astronomy , artificial intelligence
In deciding whether to enter a domestic violence restraining order, many judges think about their careers in addition to the merits of the cases before them. While the damage to parent–child relationships and to children’s mental health caused by the overzealous entering of restraining orders is seldom if ever reported by the media, the harm caused by overtly violent acts following the failure to enter restraining orders most certainly is. In regards to restraining orders, the phrase “erring on the side of caution” is often invoked. It is more accurate, however, to characterize the judge’s behavior as “erring on the side of hidden harm.” Rather than judges, juries—one time judicial actors—should decide when domestic violence restraining orders are warranted.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom