Need for non-violent orders?

July 23, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On Tuesday, tragedy struck in Indianapolis when a man allegedly murdered two people – his ex-wife and her boyfriend – and then reportedly turned the gun on himself. The man had a history of violence, according to police and news reports, and the ex-wife had a non-violent contact order against her ex-husband for past threats and violent action toward her, including the threat he would kill her and himself.

However, don’t all people essentially have a non-violent contact order for each other as part of a civilized society that seeks to punish those who hurt others unnecessarily? And legally, are these court orders even in line with Indiana Code 34-26-5, the Indiana Civil Protective Order Statute?

The legal director of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence raises these issues, adding the ICADV, along with attorneys at Baker & Daniels working pro bono, filed a notice of appeal for two such orders on Tuesday.

Considering the non-violent contact order didn’t prevent violence against a woman who had the foresight to file for a protective order, it could be said that it didn’t do anything, or at least it didn’t do enough to protect her this time. Some may also argue that all protective orders are just a piece of paper anyway, or may claim there are instances when people abuse the system when they file such orders without enough proof of an abusive or threatening situation.

But why would judges issue these so-called non-violent orders in at least two counties in Indiana – Marion and Lake? Is there a need to have the option of non-violent contact orders for certain circumstances, or not? We hope to get answers to these questions for a future article, and as always, welcome input from the legal community. Post comments about this issue here, or send an e-mail to rberfanger@ibj.com.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT