NationStates Jolt Archive

PETERBOROUGH, Ontario - A judge has ruled that a 24-year-old Canadian man is not allowed to have a girlfriend for the next three years.

The ruling came after Steven Cranley pleaded guilty on Tuesday to several charges stemming from an assault on a former girlfriend.

Cranley, who has been diagnosed with a dependent personality disorder, attacked his girlfriend in an argument after their breakup.

He tried to prevent her from phoning the police by cutting her phone cord and punched and kicked her. He finally stabbed himself with a butcher knife when police did arrive, puncturing his aorta.

Doctors say Cranley has difficulty coping with rejection and runs a high risk to re-offend if he becomes involved in another intimate relationship.

Justice Rhys Morgan said Cranley "cannot form a romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person.

"That is the only way I can see the protection of the public is in place until you get the counseling you need."

On the one hand, I am extremely edgy about government dictating people's personal lives.

On the other hand, I can't argue with the judge's conclusion that this fellow is obviously a danger to any woman he becomes involved with. His diagnosed psychological disorder kind of adds to the case.

What do y'all think?

Should a judge be able to enforce a no-dating policy on a convicted abuser? What about other sorts of relationship (like parent-child)?

I don't know... that gives me a bad feeling.
I think a better solution may have been to oblige him to inform dates about his personality disorder or something, and to make him have treatment and consultation. But not allow him to date at all... I think that's overstepping it a bit.

I think if anything the judge should have order the man to undergo the appropriate psychological treatment. The ruling violates a core tenet of the Charter which guarantees the right to freedom of association. By saying the man can't have certain types of relationships infringes upon this freedom.

However, it doesn't change that he is a threat to others, primarily women. The judge should have used greater discretion in the sentencing. By barring the man from holding certain types of relationships, he'd not helping to solve the problem. If the judge wanted to help solve it, he would have ordered the offender to undergo psychological analysis and treatment to fix this problem.

On the one hand, I am extremely edgy about government dictating people's personal lives.

On the other hand, I can't argue with the judge's conclusion that this fellow is obviously a danger to any woman he becomes involved with. His diagnosed psychological disorder kind of adds to the case.

What do y'all think?

Should a judge be able to enforce a no-dating policy on a convicted abuser? What about other sorts of relationship (like parent-child)?

Nope that sorta out of order. why not just put this bloke into a hospital until his head is sorted instead? Heh care in the community huh!

Can he go to a prostitute then?

how are they going to enforce this? rush his bedroom to check if he doesn't get "intimate" with a girl or something?

I note that he doesn't have the right to a FEMALE mate... maybe he should consider switching side... </lame joke>

how are they going to enforce this? rush his bedroom to check if he doesn't get "intimate" with a girl or something?

I don't know the specifics in this case, but the idea of prohibiting a particular activity is not unheard of. For instance, convicted hackers can be banned from using computers for a certain length of time.

I don't know the specifics in this case, but the idea of prohibiting a particular activity is not unheard of. For instance, convicted hackers can be banned from using computers for a certain length of time.

But the question is, how do they enforce it?

I don't know the specifics in this case, but the idea of prohibiting a particular activity is not unheard of. For instance, convicted hackers can be banned from using computers for a certain length of time.

so basically they'll check on him to make sure he doesn't meet girls? that seems to be aknowledging (sp?) that he's got a problem, but not doing anything about it. I back the proposition made earlier that he'd be better off consulting.

anyway I find the three years ban to be stupid. how do we know he'll be better at handling rejection in three years?

I don't know... that gives me a bad feeling.
I think a better solution may have been to oblige him to inform dates about his personality disorder or something
That would be even less enforceable.

But not allow him to date at all... I think that's overstepping it a bit.
I don't. Too bad it is practically unenforceable.

For instance, convicted hackers can be banned from using computers for a certain length of time.
Usually life or for so long the computer and methods they used to hack is so obsolete it is in the Smithsonian.

so basically they'll check on him to make sure he doesn't meet girls? that seems to be aknowledging (sp?) that he's got a problem, but not doing anything about it. I back the proposition made earlier that he'd be better off consulting.

anyway I find the three years ban to be stupid. how do we know he'll be better at handling rejection in three years?
The man was sentenced to undergo therapy. He's just also banned from dating for three years.

Some other things to kick around:

We send a car thief to jail for a set number of years. How do we know they'll be "cured" within that number of years?

Wouldn't being sent to jail be an even greater infringement on this fellow's civil liberties?

Also, as to the question of how they'd check up on it, they probably can't. But if he DOES date (against orders), and if he hits that girlfriend, and if she brings charges, then this ruling could be used to impose additional penalties.

Sensible but probably unconstitutional.

The man was sentenced to undergo therapy. He's just also banned from dating for three years.

Some other things to kick around:

We send a car thief to jail for a set number of years. How do we know they'll be "cured" within that number of years?

Wouldn't being sent to jail be an even greater infringement on this fellow's civil liberties?

Also, as to the question of how they'd check up on it, they probably can't. But if he DOES date (against orders), and if he hits that girlfriend, and if she brings charges, then this ruling could be used to impose additional penalties.

jail is supposed to be a punishment, not a cure. besides, stealing cars is not a sickness. I think that forbiding him to date just so they can hit him harder in case of a second offense is a bit over the top, kind of like what they make you sign when you want to get to the US (no, I swear, I ain't gonna kill your prez!)... forbiding him to have a date depending on the advice of his doctor seems more sensible though.

On the one hand, I am extremely edgy about government dictating people's personal lives.

On the other hand, I can't argue with the judge's conclusion that this fellow is obviously a danger to any woman he becomes involved with. His diagnosed psychological disorder kind of adds to the case.

What do y'all think?

Should a judge be able to enforce a no-dating policy on a convicted abuser? What about other sorts of relationship (like parent-child)?
I am willing to agree with the judge's decision in this case, but only due to his diagnosed psychological disorder, which needs to be cured, and curing it would be a condition of my acceptance of this.

If, however, a similiar case arose where said disorder does not exist in the man in question, the judge can go to hell. You do not control people's lives unless they simply cannot be trusted to not committ crimes or what have you. Now, that said, I would encourage a hell of a lot of therapy for the guy, but I wouldn't control his life. After all, he can change his ways. Not a single person should ever be written off, for there is always a way to allow them to change, to become better people and to integrate into society like the rest of us. (Not in being the same, mind, but in respecting the laws and people and whatnot.)

Unless, of course, the car thief is some kind of kleptomaniac....

I am of the same opinion as the Judge on this.

Judge rules that abusive man can't have a girlfriendLOL.. stupid Judge.

One nite stands are so much fun.

jail is supposed to be a punishment, not a cure.

Actually, there's a lot of disagreement about that.

Lots of people believe that prison should be used to rehabilitate convicts, not just punish them.


besides, stealing cars is not a sickness.

For some, it is.


I think that forbiding him to date just so they can hit him harder in case of a second offense is a bit over the top, kind of like what they make you sign when you want to get to the US (no, I swear, I ain't gonna kill your prez!)...

It's actually a pretty common legal practice to do this sort of thing. You get it on the record that somebody's not supposed to do something, and if they choose to do it they get extra penalties.

It's a lot like parole rules. For instance, somebody could have "cannot use computers" as a condition of their parole. If they are later busted for hacking, they can be given extra penalties because they not only broke the law, they broke the conditions of their parole.

Seems rather like parole to me

Something like a drug parole saying you can not be found to be in possession of a controlled substance

That being said I am rather uncomfortable with this sort of thing being applied to relationships.

Actually, there's a lot of disagreement about that.

Lots of people believe that prison should be used to rehabilitate convicts, not just punish them.


For some, it is.


It's actually a pretty common legal practice to do this sort of thing. You get it on the record that somebody's not supposed to do something, and if they choose to do it they get extra penalties.

It's a lot like parole rules. For instance, somebody could have "cannot use computers" as a condition of their parole. If they are later busted for hacking, they can be given extra penalties because they not only broke the law, they broke the conditions of their parole.

why do they have to promise they won't do something that's already illegal? I can understand people having heavier penalties for second offense (sp?) but it seems weird to me to have to swear not to do it again. I mean, it seems kind of obvious that they shouldn't.

Well those on parole aren't allowed to be near felons, this guy shouldn't be allowed relationships with women. Doesn't seem to be that big a stretch.

why do they have to promise they won't do something that's already illegal? I can understand people having heavier penalties for second offense (sp?) but it seems weird to me to have to swear not to do it again. I mean, it seems kind of obvious that they shouldn't.

Greater punishment leads to (or should lead to) a greater decrease in the target behavior, according to behavior theory. It doesn't always work that way, though, since there's rarely a consideration for the rewards of engaging in that behavior, which can vary greatly from person to person. Not to mention that punishment isn't that great of a deterrent anyways.

As for the judge limiting the man's relationships, I'm actually ok with it - if we can decide who is fit to be a parent or not, than we probably have some limited ability to decide who is fit to be in a relationship. For example, I can imagine seeing spouse abusers being limited in their relationships.

In regards to what I think the sentence should be, I pretty much agree with the judge. Therapy and a limitation on relationships, perhaps as a condition of parole.

How exactly does the judge define what a girlfriend is in this case and how can he expect the defendant not to slip down the slippery slope between having a girl friend and him seeing her as a girlfriend. It doesn't necessaarily have to be fully reciprocated for him to become jealous, though that is an assumption.

I would say the judge can insist on counselling and advise against having a girlfriend, that advisement can be noted for future cases, but to ban? I'm not sure it's the correct thing to do.

This may be trite but if you ban a child who loves chocolate from eating chocolate, does it not make that chocolate more attractive to the child? Does it not make the chocolate a guilty pleasure?

Hope it makes some sort of sense.

That is a violation of his rights, and of the principles underlining social freedom in Western society.

I don't know much about Canadian law, but if even half of my faith in Canada is warranted this won't stand on appeal.

That is a violation of his rights, and of the principles underlining social freedom in Western society.

I don't know much about Canadian law, but if even half of my faith in Canada is warranted this won't stand on appeal.

From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Charter/index.html)...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Those two clauses are of interest because while the man has the right to freedom of association, the people who may be potential victims have the right to life, liberty and security of the person... so the problem is, which comes first?

That is a violation of his rights, and of the principles underlining social freedom in Western society.

If being banned from dating is a violation of his rights, then wouldn't prison time be an even bigger violation? Are you saying that it is not appropriate to imprison violent criminals?

That's retarded.

I'm sorry, but it's none of the state's fucking business what someone does in their private life, as long as their not harming anyone.

That's retarded.

I'm sorry, but it's none of the state's fucking business what someone does in their private life, as long as their not harming anyone.

Well in this case the guy did harm someone...

This is one of the things that I don't know what to think, because each option makes me feel icky. The psychological disorder bit makes the judge's decision feel less icky to me, though.

Well in this case the guy is harming people...

What I meant was that what someone does in their private life is none of the states business, until they hurt someone. Then they can be sentenced to fines/jail/community service/whatever for that, but after that, the government should fuck off. Also, does this strike any one else as basically unenforceable?

Not only that, but doesn't it seem like not allowing him to date would probably make it a lot more likely for him to commit crimes in the future?

Those two clauses are of interest because while the man has the right to freedom of association, the people who may be potential victims have the right to life, liberty and security of the person... so the problem is, which comes first?
To the best of my understanding, Canada does have a prison system. So Canadians obviously feel it is acceptable to deprive individuals of their right to freedom of association (as well as the rights to liberty, assembly, and security of person) under certain circumstances.

That's retarded.

I'm sorry, but it's none of the state's fucking business what someone does in their private life, as long as their not harming anyone.
So I guess women aren't "anyone"...?

Or perhaps punching and kicking a woman does not constitute "harm"?

I can not speak for canadian law, but such a ruling probably would not fly in the United States.

Moreover something fits very fundamentally wrong with me about this particular sentencing. It creates a restriction on freedom that violates several constitutional rights, and I am unsure if I could support such a ruling on that grounds.

That being said, this is canada, and I can't speak for canadian law.

So I guess women aren't "anyone"...?

Or perhaps punching and kicking a woman does not constitute "harm"?

If he is that much of a risk maybe he would be better served in prison or an institution

In the end the judge is specifying the type of relationship not just the type of person and that gets a LOT trickier

In the end this thing is so un-enforceable and vague that it is practically worthless to both enforce or even pin down

So I guess women aren't "anyone"...?

Or perhaps punching and kicking a woman does not constitute "harm"?

and he is certain to do that again if he gets involved with someone? If not you really can't say that he will harm someone in a private relationship.

So I guess women aren't "anyone"...?

Or perhaps punching and kicking a woman does not constitute "harm"?

Read the fucking followup before snapping at me. It clarifies that what I meant was that someone's private life should be off limits until they harm someone, then they can be punished, but the punishment should not prohibit the forming of relationships, and I'd imagine prohibiting the forming of relationships likely would increase the likelihood of more crimes being committed.

But if you do it to "your" woman, you are free to go. Just get some therapy, hmm?

You need to calm down. Almost no one has said this. The closest thing I've read is to get a huge amount of therapy in addition to jail, as far as I can tell.

If he is that much of a risk maybe he would be better served in prison or an institution

In the end the judge is specifying the type of relationship not just the type of person and that gets a LOT trickier

In the end this thing is so un-enforceable and vague that it is practically worthless to both enforce or even pin down
See, now THESE are sound arguments.

Personally, the only problem I have with the judge's ruling is that this guy isn't going to prison for assault.

If you jump a stranger on the street and start punching and kicking them, and then break their phone when they try to call for help, you are going to prison for a while.

But if you do it to "your" woman, you are free to go. Just get some therapy, hmm?

jail is supposed to be a punishment, not a cure.

Not in Canada it ain't.
Jail is for rehabilitation in Canada.

forbiding him to have a date depending on the advice of his doctor seems more sensible though.

That's exactly what the judge did.

If somebody is sent to prison, he's pretty effectively denied the chance to go out on the dating scene and pick up chicks. Seems like this punishment interferes with his ability to form relationships a whole lot less than going to prison would.

Do jails have dating scenes I wonder?

Read the fucking followup before snapping at me. It clarifies that what I meant was that someone's private life should be off limits until they harm someone, then they can be punished, but the punishment should not prohibit the forming of relationships, and I'd imagine prohibiting the forming of relationships likely would increase the likelihood of more crimes being committed.
If somebody is sent to prison, he's pretty effectively denied the chance to go out on the dating scene and pick up chicks. Seems like this punishment interferes with his ability to form relationships a whole lot less than going to prison would.

and he is certain to do that again if he gets involved with someone? If not you really can't say that he will harm someone in a private relationship.
I can definitely say that he already did harm someone.

We send people to jail if they beat up a stranger. The fact that they might never beat up another stranger doesn't change the fact that they DID beat up a stranger.

If somebody is sent to prison, he's pretty effectively denied the chance to go out on the dating scene and pick up chicks. Seems like this punishment interferes with his ability to form relationships a whole lot less than going to prison would.

Okay.

Let me try to put this in simple words:

If the person is not jailed, their private lives should not be affected. For example, probation is unlikely to affect their private lives, whereas banning a person from dating, besides being somewhat draconian, should not be considered a sound punishment by any means.

To the best of my understanding, Canada does have a prison system. So Canadians obviously feel it is acceptable to deprive individuals of their right to freedom of association (as well as the rights to liberty, assembly, and security of person) under certain circumstances.

Oh yes we do. But, the problem is that this ruling bars him from dating, which in itself fails to address the problem. While it does protect any potential partners from harm by this man, it doesn't change that he does have fundamental rights and he hasn't been sent to jail.

Which is why, treatment would have been the best way. The judge could have said that upon completing psychological treatment and has met the conditions to allow him to associate with a person in a relationship beyond friendship, such as displaying good behaviour and has potentially reformed, there is no need to impose strict conditions on the person's existence.

I quoted those passages because I felt that the sentence didn't address the problem so much as it tried to simply push it aside.

See, now THESE are sound arguments.

Personally, the only problem I have with the judge's ruling is that this guy isn't going to prison for assault.

If you jump a stranger on the street and start punching and kicking them, and then break their phone when they try to call for help, you are going to prison for a while.

But if you do it to "your" woman, you are free to go. Just get some therapy, hmm?

I am all for rehabilitation but if he is a significant risk he should be incarcerated until that threat level reduces to something approaching normal. This ruling is so hard to enforce that it does jack shit in the end to actually address his problem

Add to that, the fact that I am not all too comfortable with my government (if it was in the USA) making this sort of freedom of association sort of decisions specially when the above is considered.

I would rather something reasonable had happened to this guy rather then this

I would rather something reasonable had happened to this guy rather then this

How about some inpatient time at a psychiatric hospital/jail?

I can definitely say that he already did harm someone.

That's nice, but that's not what I asked. I'm not talking about the assault and battery he already comitted. he violated the law let him be punished.

What I asked was, this is an instance of the government pre-emptively saying "no" on the grounds he MIGHT do something. Not restriction of rights based on what he did, but rather what he MIGHT do.

This is where I begin to have issues, restriction of someone's rights because of what they MIGHT do.

We send people to jail if they beat up a stranger. The fact that they might never beat up another stranger doesn't change the fact that they DID beat up a stranger.

Sure, and he should be sent to jail for what he did. That being said, if someone beats up a stranger, he is not forbidden from ever interacting with a stranger again.

That is a violation of his rights, and of the principles underlining social freedom in Western society.

I don't know much about Canadian law, but if even half of my faith in Canada is warranted this won't stand on appeal.

This is a sentencing after he violated somebody else's right and the principle underlying social freedom in Western society.

Yes, it violate his rights but so is every other sentencing out there. We prohibit felons from owning guns, we prohibit sex offender from being near children and we even go so far as having restraining order. All of that violates a defendant's rights but they are still used for the greater good of the community.

In that optic, if the ruling manages to make the guy realise he's got a problem and that the guy voluntarily obey the sentencing, then all the better as everybody wins.

Besides, as pointed before, it's not like it's easily enforceable.

How about some inpatient time at a psychiatric hospital/jail?
Yes
Much less arbitrary, Easier enforced. And I have a feeling with better chance of success for him and safety for future relationships.

Sensible but probably unconstitutional.

I suppose the question is, why isn't the constitution sensible?

I can not speak for canadian law, but such a ruling probably would not fly in the United States.

Honestly, when I read the thread title I figured it would be from the states. I was rather surprised it was from Canada. I can easilly see this ruling coming from south of the border.

Moreover something fits very fundamentally wrong with me about this particular sentencing. It creates a restriction on freedom that violates several constitutional rights, and I am unsure if I could support such a ruling on that grounds.

That being said, this is canada, and I can't speak for canadian law.

Well, so is jail, restraining order and a large variety of sentences. It is rather odd as far as sentences go, but it is in the same ballpark as a restraining order: it prohibit someone who's prone to violence from the object that trigger that violence.

Honestly, when I read the thread title I figured it would be from the states. I was rather surprised it was from Canada. I can easilly see this ruling coming from south of the border.



Well, so is jail, restraining order and a large variety of sentences. It is rather odd as far as sentences go, but it is in the same ballpark as a restraining order: it prohibit someone who's prone to violence from the object that trigger that violence.

A restraining order is on a specific person or place rather then some vague restriction on relationship type, how do even define "girlfriend"

A restraining order is on a specific person or place rather then some vague restriction on relationship type, how do even define "girlfriend"

So...Can he get like, a mail-order bride or something? Because it prohibits girlfriends, not wives...

See, now THESE are sound arguments.

Personally, the only problem I have with the judge's ruling is that this guy isn't going to prison for assault.

If you jump a stranger on the street and start punching and kicking them, and then break their phone when they try to call for help, you are going to prison for a while.

But if you do it to "your" woman, you are free to go. Just get some therapy, hmm?

Well, to be honest, mental disorder is a justification for lesser sentencing and has been for quite a while. The guy's doctor said he suffers from some deep-seated what'-it-called and it is how he avoided jail time.

It's not like Canada does this persistently when faced with assault on a woman....

A restraining order is on a specific person or place rather then some vague restriction on relationship type, how do even define "girlfriend"

Indeed.

I'm thinking the ruling is more for the guy to stop and think about getting help than to effectively stopping him. But since it would be harder to enforce a "think about it" sentence than to this, we can only hope the guy's too afraid of prison to chance it.

In the meantime, he's got 3 years of therapy to cure his problem.

How about some inpatient time at a psychiatric hospital/jail?

ideally it would be best and the judge certainly hinted at seeking counseling.

But you have to know that our public mental hospital are SERIOUSLY lacking funding in Canada. Some patients end up on the streets because there'S no room for them. Sentencing him to counseling would have probably resulted in another assault in less than a year.

Indeed.

I'm thinking the ruling is more for the guy to stop and think about getting help than to effectively stopping him. But since it would be harder to enforce a "think about it" sentence than to this, we can only hope the guy's too afraid of prison to chance it.

In the meantime, he's got 3 years of therapy to cure his problem.

I have no problem with the therapy and would think it would be good after he was incarcerated or not

Hell I would like to see more therapy given out after incarceration as well ...

In the meantime, he's got 3 years of therapy to cure his problem.

Or he has three years to stew in hatred...That's not good...

You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want to be rehabilitated, and I think such a punishment could easily cause enough resentment and anger to make rehabilitation almost impossible.

Or he has three years to stew in hatred...That's not good...

You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want to be rehabilitated, and I think such a punishment could easily cause enough resentment and anger to make rehabilitation almost impossible.

I know I would sure as fuck be mad at the government for telling me what sort of relationships I can be in "It is fine sony to hang out with girls and talk to them, but if you fall for them and get into a close relationship you are going to prison"

Or he has three years to stew in hatred...That's not good...

You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want to be rehabilitated, and I think such a punishment could easily cause enough resentment and anger to make rehabilitation almost impossible.

no, see, if he hates, he'll break that ruling next week.

The ruling is only helpfull if he's a good law-abiding citizen (from now on...). If he's the angry "you can't tell me what to do!" type then that ruling will change nothing of his habits, sadly.

no, see, if he hates, he'll break that ruling next week.

The ruling is only helpfull if he's a good law-abiding citizen (from now on...). If he's the angry "you can't tell me what to do!" type then that ruling will change nothing of his habits, sadly.

Then what good does it do? I mean it is on shaky grounds on if it will cause a behavior change. And it sure as hell wont protect the next woman he chooses to hurt at least not in time.

On the one hand, I am extremely edgy about government dictating people's personal lives.

On the other hand, I can't argue with the judge's conclusion that this fellow is obviously a danger to any woman he becomes involved with. His diagnosed psychological disorder kind of adds to the case.

What do y'all think?

Should a judge be able to enforce a no-dating policy on a convicted abuser? What about other sorts of relationship (like parent-child)?

I'm of the belief that certain people should get tattooed on their face in such a way that it's obvious what their crime was.

Pedophiles, domestic abusers, serial DUI and a few other types of criminal should get their entire face tattooed in a specific pattern by the state at the time of their release, so we know who we're dealing with.

I'm of the belief that certain people should get tattooed on their face in such a way that it's obvious what their crime was.

Pedophiles, domestic abusers, serial DUI and a few other types of criminal should get their entire face tattooed in a specific pattern by the state at the time of their release, so we know who we're dealing with.

For what purpose other then making them targets?

For what purpose other then making them targets?

It would enable people to avoid them.

I'm of the belief

well, we all know what good your beliefs are.

For what purpose other then making them targets?

I'm fairly certain that is the only point.

It would enable people to avoid them.

Good idea! But maybe they should wear little yellow stars instead?

It would enable people to avoid them.

Yeah cause thats what it would be used for :rolleyes:

Good idea! But maybe they should wear little yellow stars instead?

GODWIN TO THE RESCUE!!!

Speed of lightning, roar of thunder
Fighting all who rob or plunder

Godwin Godwin!

GODWIN TO THE RESCUE!!!

Always glad to be of assistance.

GODWIN TO THE RESCUE!!!

Speed of lightning, roar of thunder
Fighting all who rob or plunder

Godwin Godwin!

Well it is only really a godwin if you do a comparison that is not valid or a stretch ... branding people so you can pick them out in a crowd seems rather valid to me

Well it is only really a godwin if you do a comparison that is not valid or a stretch ... branding people so you can pick them out in a crowd seems rather valid to me

Don't censor me, you Nazi.

:p

To get back on track,

Then what good does it do? I mean it is on shaky grounds on if it will cause a behavior change. And it sure as hell wont protect the next woman he chooses to hurt at least not in time.

And that's my main problem with this ruling. It's unenforceable.

And that's my main problem with this ruling. It's unenforceable.

That's not true. Surely they can tap his phones, monitor his internet, and follow him at all times. Maybe install a monitor inside his brain to make sure he doesn't begin to have romantic thoughts about anyone...

And that's my main problem with this ruling. It's unenforceable.

My main problem is that the judge let a guy off cutting phone cords, punching and kicking his girlfriend, stabbing himself in the aorta', and he's been let off under the promise not to form a relationship with intimate whatever with a girl, as if a psychotic person would care much about that ruling.

It truly devalues the victim.

My main problem is that the judge let a guy off cutting phone cords, punching and kicking his girlfriend, stabbing himself in the aorta', and he's been let off under the promise not to form a relationship with intimate whatever with a girl, as if a psychotic person would care much about that ruling.

It truly devalues the victim.

Yes but the guy's clearly mental. Which sane person stabs himself?

He tried to prevent her from phoning the police by cutting her phone cord and punched and kicked her. He finally stabbed himself with a butcher knife when police did arrive, puncturing his aorta.

He needs more help than his victim, if you ask me. I'm not even sure that 3 years of therapy would be enough.

And this, children, is why you change your locks and break up over the phone.

That may be a little overboard. You should have to change the locks unless you gave them a key. And even then, a sane people would just toss the key or give it back to you.

Yes but the guy's clearly mental. Which sane person stabs himself?



He needs more help than his victim, if you ask me. I'm not even sure that 3 years of therapy would be enough.

And this, children, is why you change your locks and break up over the phone.

Yeah cause thats what it would be used for :rolleyes:

Oddly enough, we have a web site that allows us to find out who the pedophiles in our neighborhood are.

I don't see people hunting them down...

I think if anything the judge should have order the man to undergo the appropriate psychological treatment. The ruling violates a core tenet of the Charter which guarantees the right to freedom of association. By saying the man can't have certain types of relationships infringes upon this freedom.

However, it doesn't change that he is a threat to others, primarily women. The judge should have used greater discretion in the sentencing. By barring the man from holding certain types of relationships, he'd not helping to solve the problem. If the judge wanted to help solve it, he would have ordered the offender to undergo psychological analysis and treatment to fix this problem.

I second this...

I second this...

Psychological analysis and outpatient treatment doesn't stop wife beating.

If you were to hold him in prison until he was 60, and aged him out so that he was too old and feeble to beat women, that might work.

Psychological treatment works better than sentencing the guy to not have a girlfriend for three years.

The only thing I'm wondering is how they're going to enforce the "no girlfriend" thing.

It seems unenforceable.

I would rather he cool his heels for 30 years or so, then let him out.

Psychological analysis and outpatient treatment doesn't stop wife beating.

If you were to hold him in prison until he was 60, and aged him out so that he was too old and feeble to beat women, that might work.

Psychological treatment works better than sentencing the guy to not have a girlfriend for three years.

Psychological treatment works better than sentencing the guy to not have a girlfriend for three years.

It finds out what is causing the behaviour then seeks to change it through treatment, which doesn't typically rely on medication.

It finds out what is causing the behaviour then seeks to change it through treatment, which doesn't typically rely on medication.

Although meds might help. Antipsychotics, most likely. Maybe antidepressants, as well.

It finds out what is causing the behaviour then seeks to change it through treatment, which doesn't typically rely on medication.

It doesn't work. Period.

The man has to want to change. The psychologist can wish all he likes, but no magical genie is going to come out and make the man want to change.

It doesn't work. Period.

The man has to want to change. The psychologist can wish all he likes, but no magical genie is going to come out and make the man want to change.

A person can want to change one they understand why they behave a certain way. People resist change when they don't understand that which is happening around them. Change seem scary.

Psychological treatment works better than sentencing the guy to not have a girlfriend for three years.
So long as the women he dates are made aware of his condition, I'd agree.

A person can want to change one they understand why they behave a certain way. People resist change when they don't understand that which is happening around them. Change seem scary.
I'm interested in this for the reason that I am interested to find out to just what extent psychological issues are a matter of genetics and amenable to amelioration via therapy. Is such a change honestly possible in most cases? Moreover, how is such change even measurable? Can't a patient lie after all?

Although meds might help. Antipsychotics, most likely. Maybe antidepressants, as well.

It might but you have to get to the root of the problem before you try and find a solution. It's one thing to send a person to a psychiatrist who says, after one session x is the problem and gives the person a medication they think will solve it, and it's another entirely to get to the root of the problem and find out that maybe meds aren't the solution after all.

A person can want to change one they understand why they behave a certain way. People resist change when they don't understand that which is happening around them. Change seem scary.

Sorry, psychological therapy on the unwilling has less chance of working than a monkey picking the outcome of sports games.

Sorry, psychological therapy on the unwilling has less chance of working than a monkey picking the outcome of sports games.

And psychiatric therapy, while also a viable alternative often dopes up the patient as a probable solution instead of trying to get around the problem by not using medication.

If the person is unwilling, then they would ignore the medication, and you're back in square one. But who are to to say the person is necessarily unwilling because they like the way they are or because they simply don't understand why they do what they do.

Sorry, psychological therapy on the unwilling has less chance of working than a monkey picking the outcome of sports games.

Who says the guy who pleaded guilty (and stabbed himself when the police came) is unwilling?

Who says the guy who pleaded guilty (and stabbed himself when the police came) is unwilling?

I thought of saying that but my fingers didn't want to transmit what my brain was saying.

This reminds me of a case that happened where I live, in Rochester, NY, a few years back. A judge (who happens to be Philip Seymour Hoffman's mother) ruled that a woman could not have anymore babies because they were a strain on child support services.
I was, and still am, of two minds on that. On the one hand, that's definitely the most practical. On the other, however, its social engineering, the type that has pervaded our judiciary since the Warner court. So I'd have to say that both decisions are in the wrong because they violate basic human liberties.

This reminds me of a case that happened where I live, in Rochester, NY, a few years back. A judge (who happens to be Philip Seymour Hoffman's mother) ruled that a woman could not have anymore babies because they were a strain on child support services.
I was, and still am, of two minds on that. On the one hand, that's definitely the most practical. On the other, however, its social engineering, the type that has pervaded our judiciary since the Warner court. So I'd have to say that both decisions are in the wrong because they violate basic human liberties.

Out of curiosity, how many was too many?

Out of curiosity, how many was too many?

I think she had four over five years. But she was drug-addicted, a welfare recipient, and unable to take care of her children. To be honest, though, I only remember the case because the judge was Philip Seymour Hoffman's mom, and I met her once or twice before she was elected.

Yuck.

On the one hand, I definitely think this guy should not be dating until he learns how to control his behavior. On the other, however, I am really, really troubled by the precedent a ruling like this sets, especially when the guy's mental illness is used as a justification.

Personally, the only problem I have with the judge's ruling is that this guy isn't going to prison for assault.


He actually did go to jail for it. Served 150 days.

So the 'no girlfriend for three years' is much like parole. Totally unenforceable though. But then again..the guys' name is in the paper and unless the woman is a masochist.. I fear he will have a hard time forming another relationship.

I just read this story on another site. Not sure how they can enofce it short of keeping him in prison for 3 years, but the intent is what counts, and the judge's judgment (:p) seems about right to me.

"That is the only way I can see the protection of the public is in place until you get the counseling you need."

The judge is giving him three years to seek councelling to try and work him through this violent dependance he has.

I have no problem with this, honestly. If he has been diagnosed as a risk to society, then I'm all for it. It's better than jail time.

How it can be enforsed, however, is hard to say, unless he is going to have to have a curfew or some such thing. I mean, it really depends him as much as it does the law. You can campaign for his rights all you like, but he is violent toward his spouses, and is responsible for his actions. What about their rights? I think without the psychological diagnosis, he probably would have done jail time.

Rapists and pedophiles can have their freedoms limited as well. Does anybody object to not allowing pedophiles within range of schools and parks?