The Law of Unintended Consequences at work

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, March 31, 2005 15:57
VIEWED: 3385
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Saturday, March 26, 2005 4:12 AM

There are differences in the law b/c of recognized differences in how the whole situation plays out. Domestic violence is repetitive. The people live together so there's routine opportunity for violence. The person being beaten might figure they deserved it and can't bring themselves to press charges. It's not like strangers who happen to bump into each other who get into a fight.

Some states have passed laws that if law officers see evidence of domestic violence, they must automatically arrest and charge the perpetrator. That was done to enable them to break up a chronic violent situation (and attendent repeated calls and risk to the officers).

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, March 26, 2005 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

(calm, soothing voice on)
No, I didn't say that you stated anything like that at all. Not even remotely close to those set of words anywhere, nor those ideas.

You replied to me (and quoted me) with a question. Something that, as it was written, extended what I wrote well beyond what was written.

If you wish to play devil advocate or somesuch, I'd appreciate it if you'd label you post as such. Or ask the question like "Are you implying..." or "Wouldn't that imply..." or "That might imply...", instead of "So, ..." which is more aggressive and can be seen as sarcastic. Especially if it is the first word of a post.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

But you'd have to admit if all we did were parrot each other endlessly on this board, it would be boring at least, and murderously frustrating at best.

I don't think that it'd be fustrating. Boring, I don't know.

I've had a number of conversations with SignyM and Rue amoung others, and we've agreed on pretty much everything and have had much fun doing it. At least, I had much fun doing it. Don't want to speak for others.

I do see your point though.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

So, I ask if that could extend to my dependency on my boss or maybe my overly zealous landlord - considering if I was in that type of situation and relationship where I am by and large dependent on them for my living and livelyhood and they were beating me to some degree. Or to take a different angle, perhaps an assortment of emotion abuse.

Most people aren't dependant on bosses. If there boss is being abusive they can just get them removed and the boss will be replaced. There is also finding another job, etc.

To leave a job would be must easier than leaving a spouse/livin/etc as someone could just look and find another job and then just up and quit one day.

I've had to do this. Not because of physical treatment, but because of mental/psychological/etc reasons. Getting yelled at for no reason every workday isn't a fun enviornment (amoung other things).

The landlord problem is much greater if someone lives with "limited income." But this is why there are such strict slum-lord laws in most places. There is also truspassing/assult/etc laws which prevent other problems. And, as above, landlords are typically easily replaced.

The problem here is that people in this situation typically don't even know that these laws exist. If that was to be fixed, then I'd conjecture that this problem would become much less prevelent.

I also think that to be able to claim "domestic violence" there must be some semblence of a relationship (romantic).

I hope I've addressed your points more readily this time round

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, March 26, 2005 5:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
but that was my mini-rhetoric approach to find out whether what I've learned is correct - that someone who is by and large dependent on someone else for their resources - and I hope that some sort of blood-relations is not of immediate importance - and is beaten can claim a problem of "domestic violence". So, I ask if that could extend to my dependency on my boss or maybe my overly zealous landlord - considering if I was in that type of situation and relationship where I am by and large dependent on them for my living and livelyhood and they were beating me to some degree. Or to take a different angle, perhaps an assortment of emotion abuse.

This is why it is a mistake to define ‘domestic violence’ on marriage. If ‘domestic violence’ is as rue and sigma have describe it, that is violence between a dominate aggressor and an emotionally captive or semi-captive dependent, then one could find this paradigm existing in many aspects of society that have nothing to do with marriage. The situation in the court case in Ohio is one such example. You've described a couple good examples. Or maybe even two roommates? The examples are endless. So the problem with this law that they have in Ohio may not be a consequence of the gay marriage ban per se, but rather of the limited way in which ‘domestic violence’ is typically defined.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

If ‘domestic violence’ is as rue and sigma have describe it, that is violence between a dominate aggressor and an emotionally captive or semi-captive dependent, then one could find this paradigm existing in many aspects of society that have nothing to do with marriage.

Actually, I never really tried to define it. I only went about describing how it is worse than typical assults.

Also, to quote myself:

Quote:

I also think that to be able to claim "domestic violence" there must be some semblence of a relationship (romantic).

Neither of us has been asked to, nor have we tried to actually define what is "domestic violence." So, to quote you, "this is your invention."

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

the limited way in which ‘domestic violence’ is typically defined.

I'm game. Tell us Finn, how is "domestic violence" typically defined? Does this definition change from state to state? How about at the federal level? What about outside the US? If yes to any of the latter 3, can there even be a typical definition?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Actually, I never really tried to define it. I only went about describing how it is worse than typical assults.
…
Neither of us has been asked to, nor have we tried to actually define what is "domestic violence." So, to quote you, "this is your invention."

Nor did I say you defined it, did I? I used the word “describe.” You were describing it or some aspect of it, weren’t you? Maybe you should reread my post.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'm game. Tell us Finn, how is "domestic violence" typically defined? Does this definition change from state to state? How about at the federal level? What about outside the US? If yes to any of the latter 3, can there even be a typical definition?

Well it would seem to be typically defined in terms of marriage or some similar circumstances. Marriage would seem to clearly be an aspect of the definition in Ohio; otherwise they wouldn’t be having the problem they’re having.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, March 26, 2005 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

You were describing it or some aspect of it, weren’t you?

There is a large difference between describing an aspect of it and describing it itself.

edit added: You cannot claim to use my/our description if we haven't actually made one. If you wanted me/us to give an actual one, then you should've asked instead of going on with a partial one calling it a description of domestic violence.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

I'm game. Tell us Finn, how is "domestic violence" typically defined? Does this definition change from state to state? How about at the federal level? What about outside the US? If yes to any of the latter 3, can there even be a typical definition?

Well it would seem to be typically defined in terms of marriage or some similar circumstances. Marriage would seem to clearly be an aspect of the definition in Ohio; otherwise they wouldn’t be having the problem they’re having.

Although you are right (maybe we'll see how this plays out) with the specific Ohio case. You still haven't answered my questions.

A counter example to 'defined within marrage' is any case where the parties involved are common law, or boy/girl friends, etc. Which I would think, someone would be able to find cases of even in Ohio.

Basically, for a definition to be typical, it must exibit same properites at large across the board. So, if you are going to use the word, typical, you're going to have to let us know what you mean by that.

I'm not going to assume anything from your last post, because if I guess wrong, you'll just come back and say "that's your invention..." etc like you've done before even if there's justification for the assumptions.

So, enlighten us to your means.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, March 26, 2005 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is a large difference between describing an aspect of it and describing it itself.

edit added: You cannot claim to use my/our description if we haven't actually made one. If you wanted me/us to give an actual one, then you should've asked instead of going on with a partial one calling it a description of domestic violence.

But you did describe it, both of you. And a pretty good description at that. It’s kind of dumb to even discuss whether you describe it, you know did. You claimed you described it and then claimed you didn’t make any such description. In the same POST!!! Your comments on this board are wholly incoherent sometimes.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Although you are right (maybe we'll see how this plays out) with the specific Ohio case. You still haven't answered my questions.

Haven’t answered your questions? You mean I didn’t go into an encyclopedic description of every case, worldwide, involving ‘domestic violence’ to prove that the word ‘typical’ was appropriately used? That’s true I didn’t. And don’t intend to. Complain about something other then semantics and then maybe we can talk.

Although, really I’m hoping the Tyrannosaur tissue discussion takes off, personally. But that may not involve enough politics for this board. Now maybe if the Tyrannosaur tissue was gay or invaded Iraq?

ILGREVEN

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Now attorneys in Ohio are telling me that someone must be legally married before the state can prevent or react to acts of violence between two people? If the judge throws this case out, I could go to Ohio and beat the shit out of my girlfriend as long as I’m not married to her?

Not quite...but, you'll only be going to prison for 2 years instead of 20...

"Bye now. Have good sex!"

HERO

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Now attorneys in Ohio are telling me that someone must be legally married before the state can prevent or react to acts of violence between two people? If the judge throws this case out, I could go to Ohio and beat the shit out of my girlfriend as long as I’m not married to her? I’m not married to lots of people in Ohio. That'll pretty much open the door to me beating the shit out of the whole state.

Not really. Speaking as an Ohio prosecutor...the answer is "no, you could not beat the shit out of the whole state". Lets look at the Ohio Revised Code, shall we:

1. Assuming you beat the shit out of someone but don't kill them in the process there's:
2903.08 Aggravated Vehicular Assault (if you run them over). Could be an F-2, 3 or 4
2903.11 Felonious Assault (Thats serious physical harm to another or just regular harm using a deadly weapon.) F-1 or 2
2903.12 Agg. Assault (Same as above but in a sudden fit of rage.) F-3 or 4
2903.13 Assault (Just plain assault)M-1 or F-3 (if the victim was disabled).
2903.14 Negligent Assault (Oops, I didn't realize that the baseball bat could hurt somebody). M-3.

Or if you threaten (often physical viloence follows threats of violence):
2903.21 Agg. Meancing (I'm gonna hurt you BAD). M-1 or F-4.
2903.21.1 Menacing by Stalking (I'll be watching you). M-1 or F-4 or 5.
2903.22 Menacing (I'm gonna hurt you, but it wont be that bad.) M-4.
2903.31 Hazing (I'm gonna hurt you in a school setting.) M-4.
2917.11 Disorderly Conduct (We're gonna hurt each other at the local bar following the consumption of mass quatities of adult beverages). MM or M-4.

Or if your really sick and/or hard up for money:
2919.14 Abortion Trafficing (No experimenting on or selling the aborted product of human conception.) M-1. Note a Cleveland Judge ruled there is nothing in this statute relating to consumption, so invite your girlfriend over for dinner before you beat the shit out of her.

Then there's:
2919.25 Domestic Violence. M-4,3,1 and F-5. Says you cannot harm "family or household members". Until the Ohio Supreme Court or the 9th District Court of Appeals says otherwise, I take this at face value. I never read this as including or excluding same-sex couples. My view was if there was one roof, then anything happening between the inhabitents be they same sex or opposite sex couples, parents, siblings, or just college roomies, then its Domestic and if that don't fly, its assault with me arguing for Domestic penalties from the judge (we can and do do that). So you can beat your girlfriend, but not if you live together. Naturally I'll charge, convict, and jail you for some other form of assault, but not Domestic Violence.

Please note that none of this includes local city ordenances which may provide an alternate means of charging a person. Also you threatened to "beat the shit out of the whole state", which probably falls under Federal anti-terrorism laws, both for the threat and the act.

H

HERO

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Don't get too carried away, guys. Assault is still a crime in Ohio, just not as severely penalized as domestic violence.

Not really. Domestic Violence and Misdemeanor Assault are similar offenses. There are ancillary penalties for DV such as the weapons restriction. But most can be fixed by a good prosecutor securing a broad order from the judge. DV only becomes a felony for repeat offenders. Its still often bounced back (at least round these parts) and tried as a misdemeanor or if there is a plea its sentenced as one. Can't help that, thats a county decision.

Quote:

I can almost hear the scrambling in the Ohio statehouse as legislatiors try to figure how to straighten out their mess.

Not real familar with Ohio, are you? The legislators down Columbus way tend to ignore things like this. Same with E-Check, school funding (which was declared unconstitutional in Ohio, but never changed since even the courts finally realized that the legislature just wasna gonna fix it), etc, so on, and good lord my taxes are too high!

The problem is too few lawyers in the legislature. We have our lowest ratio in history and some of the poorest written laws I've seen. The new DUI law is a good example.

Another issue is the fact that the problem in the case of the Domestic Violence rulings are that these are the result of an Amendment to the State Constitution passed by popular vote last year. That means the legislature can't fix it.

Maybe this thread should be titled "The law of uninformed opinions at work." You people don't know much about this State.

H

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE