The Law of Unintended Consequences at work

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

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3

HERO

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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.

Nope, marriage is NOT in the law. The law specifically states "Family or household" members.

It might be that the Cleveland Courts, probably liberal judges, are registering their disagreement with last year' Constitutional Amendment by adopting an overly broad interpretation of its mandate to deny legal status to unmarried couples. Since the law in question specifically excludes marriage and includes by precedent and established law "household" members, it is likely that the courts will be overuled either in their local appeals court or the State level.

Since their ruling is so much of a departure from established law, its possible that they are seeking some definative direction from the courts on some issue either specific to the cases they are hearing or general to the law. I'd say this is the most likely explanation for the ruling.

We'll find out in 6 months or so when the appeals come down.

H

XENOCIDE

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 6:52 PM

Wow Finn. Sig realy has it in for you. Can't even see when opinions overlap.

Ilgreven:"Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six months"

Just wanted to correct your 2 or 20 hyperbole with a quote from the article.

Hero: Thanks for bringing the first hand knowledge! But really too few lawyers in the legislature? Not sure I believe that. Course lawyers may be better than babykissers. Haven't really decided that question yet. I tend to be from the 'less legislation is better' school and lawyers (like in my lovely MD legislature) tend to churn out quite a bit of it. The last few years of legislative deadlock have been bliss for libertarians here, IMHO. Sorry all for the digression.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
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:

Pfft. You’re just saying that because it’s true.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
Wow Finn. Sig realy has it in for you. Can't even see when opinions overlap.

Yeah. He’s still steamed over the Vizzini comment, I think.

HERO

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
Hero: Thanks for bringing the first hand knowledge! But really too few lawyers in the legislature? Not sure I believe that.

I'm a lawyer and even I have a hard time accepting it. But the fact is we have the lowest ratio of lawyers in the legislature in the State's history.

We also have a seemingly endless parade of poorly drafted legislation coming from the capital.

I'm not saying lawyers should be the ones deciding what should or should not be law. But I do think that lawyers understand better then most people how laws should be written, in terms of style, content, structure, etc. Thats because, unlike most other people, once the laws are written, it'll be lawyers reading and interpreting them.

Too many of our laws our inconsistant, confusing, vague, or contradictory. This forces the courts to go in and make decisions that should have been addressed by the legislature...like the definition of "family or household members" in the DV statute. If the legislation was more precise, there'd be less of an issue, and less chance for something silly like this to embarass the whole Ohio legal community.

H

XENOCIDE

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 2:06 PM

'spose your right. I just wish folk'd stop writing so damned many of them.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.
http://www.bcpl.net/~wilsonr/farpoint.html

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:24 AM

I'd never really paid attention to the distinctions before (aggravated, felonious, etc.) and it was nice to get the rundown from someone who does this for a living. I especially liked the examples you included with all the various codes, Hero. My favorite:

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
2903.22 Menacing (I'm gonna hurt you, but it wont be that bad.) M-4.

On a side note (related to the problems with non-lawyers writing laws), I hope things aren't as bad in Ohio as they are in California. Our initiatives (cool in concept but terrible in practice) are basically written by anyone and put on the ballot by professional petition drives. The result is that as soon as many of them are passed they are challenged legally and tied up in court for years. Even worse, however, are the spending measures which have no sunset clauses. One of the reasons we have budget problems is that a large majority of our budget has already been allocated through decades worth of ballot initiatives. The last number I heard was 70% of state spending.

Hmmmm. I think I digressed.

HERO

Thursday, March 31, 2005 3:57 PM

Just an update.

I talked this over with some fellow Prosecutors. Here's the main problems as we see it:

1. The issue of gay on gay violence is one thing, but lets face it, its not that common. What is common is non-married co-habitating couples (ie boyfriend/girlfriend/unmarried parents, etc). We Prosecute men and women (but mostly men), for Domestic Violence involving a girlfriend all the time (I don't have the statistics, but I'd guess gay domestic violence is around 1-5% of the domestic violence in the State, I for one, have never seen such a case in my 3 years on the job and the first ones I've HEARD of is one of these Cleveland cases, I know it happens, its just not that common). If the Clevelanders interpretation goes statewide, then there will be a huge hole in the system. Sure we can still prosecute for assault, but lets all hope the Appeals judges strictly interpret the intent of the Amendment and the statutes in question, to limit same sex marriage and legal benefits, but not be overly inclusive of areas the laws are not intended to modify.

2. The Amendment to the State Constitution cannot be remedied by the legislature. Its got one of those "the legislature shall make no law" clauses. The only way to change it is to Amend it again, by popular vote. Since this is Ohio and the State is against same-sex marriage, then any new Amendment that appears to weaken that stance will not pass.

I'm against same sex marriage and legal recognition of same sex couples, sorry, thats just how I feel. However, since I'm a lawyer and love contracts, I'm in favor of Civil Unions, which I see as a viable alternative for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. To me its a matter of two individuals, for whatever reason, entering into a contractual relationship. Sex is not the issue but rather a person's fundamental right to contract with another. That kind of thing should be encouraged, regardless of the social circumstance. My favorite example is a pair of elderly friends who were living together to share expenses. They could enter a Civil Union to more effectively merge their resources and ensure that, should one die, the other does not lose their home or ability to support his or her self.

Unfortuanately the same Amendment (which I voted for) also bans these sorts of Unions. Why then did I vote for it? Because I feel more strongly against same sex marriage then I do in favor of civil unions. Sure I'd like to have both the ban and the union, but this is a Democracy...its all about compromise.

H

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3