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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT