Google+ invite lands man in jail

You can find a great deal of discussion on this specific aspect of restraining orders from abuse / shelter sites and services themselves. The recommendation from many of these is to put yet more teeth into the orders.

The question isn't "do the orders do some good?", but "is this the best possible means to achieve the goals desired?" And in this I think the answer is "no".

That dismisses the collateral damage: orders are easy to obtain, can themselves be wielded as weapons, and are seen as part of the "getting even with" aspect of many failed relationships.

Truth is, relationship are messy, tangled, and deep. And when you put the law in the way of people doing what they do, the picture gets messier, not cleaner. When I was researching a couple of points for my comments above, I ran across the following link concerning reciprocal orders:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130821170316AA...

I got a restraining order on my soon-to-be ex about three weeks ago for him constantly harassing me. We were married 11 years, have three kids, and he has always been an emotional abuser to us.

Anyway, I was served with a temporary restraining order last night, which claimed the same things in his application, as mine. He wrote humiliating lies and twisted truths saying how I have always been the abuser, etc. I am sick because it's not true, and once again he is mirroring his abuse, onto me. I can't even believe the judge signed it, and if I was so awful, why didn't he say so during our interim parenting plan hearing? I just want to move on, and I have full custody (except for one day a week) so I want to know if anyone else has dealt with something similar?

The point is: the judge in issuing an order against her was applying precisely the same legal basis for doing so: an ex-parte order based on prima facie evidence. Or for those not versed in Latin: an order issued without notice to or testimony from the restrained, based on the presumption of validity of the statements of the petitioner.

I actually see some strong merits to this, and believe that reciprocal orders as a matter of course make quite a bit of sense. The objective isn't to punish but to secure the safety of the parties involved.

The response of the attorney in that thread is on point:

Meanwhile, what's the big deal? The restraining order says you can't contact him, which I'm sure you don't want to do anyway. So let it go and have your say in court. I'm not saying don't fight it, I'm just saying don't let it bother you.

The fact that in many jurisdictions there's also an unequal balance of costs in filing and fighting claims (a petitioner may request legal and other fees from the restrained, but not vice versa), there is even more potential for abuse.

It also suggests to me that a system under which the entire process is made far less adversarial, and in which a better system of shelters and resettlement is provided for, might be, on balance, a far more effective system. Again: the goal is to secure safety, not to punish. If there is actual violence or threats of violence, there are legal means to pursue these (and the order might stand as a sign of prior notice and concern).

A significant problem with "no contact" as it's construed, which can include 2nd-hand commentary from mutual acquaintances, or, as in the possible case of the G+ incident referenced, automated notifications through third-party electronic services, is that for someone unjustly restrained it makes the process of investigating the case very much more difficult.

And the costs are real. $2000 is a good low-order estimate of what a lawyer's retainer will require. If you're looking at a family / domestic situation, odds are that your family law attorney isn't versed in criminal law, which is where the order will land you. For something like this to explode to legal and incidental costs of $10k - $100k isn't unusual, and that's just the direct costs to the individuals, exclusive of court, police, service, and other costs. Which are merited for legitimate uses, but somewhat less so where abused.

I'll raise you one more: the system is self-learning, to the point that Google engineers themselves don't understand how it reaches the results it does.

Google engineers don't understand how their "deep learning" computer systems have gotten so good

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=292255

By Jack Clark, 15th November 2013

Google no longer understands how its "deep learning" decision-making computer systems have made themselves so good at recognizing things in photos.

This means the internet giant may need fewer experts in future as it can instead rely on its semi-autonomous, semi-smart machines to solve problems all on their own.

The claims were made at the Machine Learning Conference in San Francisco on Friday by Google software engineer Quoc V. Le in a talk in which he outlined some of the ways the content-slurper is putting "deep learning" systems to work.

No. That's not how it works. They'd have to prove you wrong. "I didn't do it" is not an affirmative defence.

> And all he has to do to win is raise reasonable doubt. Get a friend to say "I did it as a prank, and he told me not to." No restraining order violated.

The trier of fact -- jury in a jury trial, judge in a bench trial -- is free (expected, even) to assess the credibility of evidence, including witness testimony. The fact that you get a witness to claim an alternative explanation to one that can be inferred from the prosecutions evidence does not, in and of itself, necessarily equate to reasonable doubt.

This goes both ways. When I (a man) was the target of some really pretty severe domestic violence (I was threatened with a knife, attacked with blunt objects and more several times a week), the reason why I eventually decided (quite deliberatively) to respond with physical force was that I looked at what my options were in the legal system and realized I didn't have any, that if I called the cops, they'd probably arrest me, not her. So I hit back with very measured force (except one time she hit me from behind with a blunt object and I hit back with full force once out of fear she might have knife in her other hand). Given the scale of what I was going through I don't think anyone would claim it wasn't self-defence.

So these things to some extent perpetuate eachother.